More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[Guest]

Put this promise in your pipe / paper and maybe smoke it.

Trudeau would start legalizing pot 'right away'

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau speaks during a campaign stop in Surrey, B.C., Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2015.

Josh Elliott, CTVNews.ca
Published Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:02PM EDT

An elected Liberal government would begin working to legalize and regulate marijuana "right away," Justin Trudeau says.

"The Liberal Party is committed to legalizing and regulating marijuana," Trudeau said, in response to a reporter's question in Surrey, B.C., on Wednesday.

The Liberal Party Leader declined to set a firm timeline for legalization, but vowed to make it an early priority if elected on Oct. 19.

Trudeau went on to accuse Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of implementing anti-marijuana policies that allow the drug to fund "criminal organizations, street gangs and gun-runners."He said legalizing marijuana would fix a "failed system" and help "remove the criminal element" linked to the drug.

"It is our intention to stop Mr. Harper's failed approach on marijuana," Trudeau added.

Trudeau said legalization could happen anywhere from a month to "a year or two" into a Liberal government, but he would make sure the process gets underway shortly after taking power.

The Liberal Party's recently-released costing platform does not include a plan to regulate or tax marijuana.

Trudeau addressed that matter on Wednesday, saying that his party would want to look at best practices in other jurisdictions, before deciding on how best to regulate it in Canada.

"We believe in being responsible and realistic in the costing of our plans," Trudeau said. "We didn't book for tax revenues for marijuana because we don't yet know what rate we're going to be taxing it."

Trudeau has voiced his support for relaxing marijuana laws in the past, but he has largely stayed away from addressing the issue during the election campaign.

On Sept. 2, Trudeau said he was not "comfortable" with the idea of seeing marijuana sold in corner stores. "At this point, I don't think corner stores necessarily are rigorous enough at checking ID to make me comfortable with that as an option," he said at the time.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has said, in the past, that he supports decriminalizing marijuana. However, he has not committed to legalizing it.

Harper has often criticized Trudeau for his pro-marijuana stance. Last month, he said most Canadians "do not want the full legalization of marijuana."

[Guest]

Another Liberal Bites the Dust.

Liberal candidate Cheryl Thomas resigns over Facebook comments

2nd B.C. candidate to resign this week because of past social media posts

CBC News Posted: Sep 30, 2015 4:36 PM PT Last Updated: Sep 30, 2015 5:22 PM PT

Liberal candidate Maria Manna steps down over Facebook posts questioning 9/11

Liberal candidate says Facebook posts questioning 9/11 were her 'truth' at the time

List of candidates, party officials who have made headlines for various gaffes

Cheryl Thomas, a Liberal Party candidate for Victoria, B.C., has resigned because of past comments she made on Facebook about the Muslim and Jewish communities.

"I want to take this moment to apologize unreservedly for past comments on social media that have come to light," wrote Thomas on her website.

"When looking back at them, I understand that they are offensive and have no place in our political discourse."

The comments were exposed by True North Times and include:

Referring to mosques as "brainwashing stations."

Saying "the oppressed of the Warsaw ghettos and the concentration camps have become the oppressors."

Thomas said she was closing her office because she didn't want to distract from the federal election campaign.

"I understand that my past comments have become a distraction from the real issues of this campaign," she said.

The deadline for replacing a candidate passed Monday, which means her name will remain on the ballot.

Earlier this week, a Liberal candidate who expressed skepticism about the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. resigned as the candidate in the B.C. riding of Cowichan-Malahat-Langford.

In a statement, the Liberal Party said Maria Manna's resignation was effective immediately, and that she'd been replaced as a candidate by Luke Krayenhoff.

"The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to ensuring the strongest representation for Canadians in communities across the country," said the statement.

[Guest]

One of the few points I now agree with Mr Trudeau on, it is time to legalize "marijuana ". There appears to be little downside, at least based on the following article which is why my POV has changed.

Colorado case study: What legalizing marijuana could mean for Canada

CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Friday, October 2, 2015 6:49PM EDT

Possibly one of the most dramatic changes coming from a Liberal government, if elected on Oct. 19, would be the legalization of marijuana in Canada.

Earlier this week on the campaign trail, Trudeau said his party is “committed to legalizing and regulating marijuana,” which would “remove the criminal element” linked to the drug and make it more difficult for youth to access.

To see what that could mean for consumers and tax collectors alike, voters can look no further than Colorado. In early 2014, it became the first U.S. state to legalize marijuana.

Colorado Rep. Jonathan Singer told CTV’s Power Play on Friday that following the legalization of cannabis in the state, “things have gone about as smoothly as can be expected,” and the “sky hasn’t fallen.”

Singer said while there is a lot more data to gather, a regulated cannabis environment is seeing some positive results.

“I can’t say that we’ve killed the black market here in Colorado, but I can say that we’ve put a serious dent in the cartel activity in marijuana,” Singer said.

Centers for Disease Control in Colorado has shown that teen cannabis use has “stayed about the same,” as what it was prior to legalization, Singer said.

In terms of crime reduction, the Democratic representative said “it depends on who you ask.” However, overall crime has stayed the same or gone down in many situations.

“When you’re looking at serious violent crime, it’s actually gone down, drunk driving has gone down, (but) not significantly.”

Singer said when he speaks to beat cops in his community, they tell him “they never wanted to be the bad guy out there stopping the person with the dime bag.”

“They were much more worried about the cartel activity and they’re happy that we’ve been able to take a bite out of that,” he said.

The Liberal Party isn’t currently banking on tax revenue from the legalization and regulation of marijuana, and has not factored it in to their spending plans.

Colorado does put a tax on marijuana, and it is “considerably higher” than the tax on alcohol, Singer said.

“Our tax revenues in Colorado on marijuana have just actually as of last month, exceeded our tax revenues from alcohol for the first time in history,” Singer said.

He added that the state has received approximately $80 million in tax revenue from marijuana, and approximately $40 million is to go towards school construction.

The legalization of marijuana has also spurred so-called cannabis tourism in Colorado, Singer said, as many people purchasing and consuming cannabis are not actually from the state.

“As a matter of fact, if Canada decides to legalize, you’re going to take a bite out of our economy, so I guess the greedy side of me could say, absolutely, keep it in the criminal market,” Singer said.

In Canada, the Conservative government has been steadfast on its anti-marijuana stance, saying among other things, that legalizing the drug would have serious health impacts on children.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said that most Canadians “do not want the full legalization of marijuana.”

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has said, in the past, that he supports decriminalizing marijuana. However, he has not committed to legalizing it.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/colorado-case-study-what-legalizing-marijuana-could-mean-for-canada-1.2592864

[flyinghigh]

Every time he comes up with a policy, I ask myself, "what's he smoking?" And by his own admission, he has been.

[FireFox]

One of the few points I now agree with Mr Trudeau on, it is time to legalize "marijuana ". There appears to be little downside, at least based on the following article which is why my POV has changed.

I don't know Former CPAIR, if you ever take a drive in Washington State you might change your mind.

Sleazy roadside weed stores all over the place, losers at bus stops toking it up @10:30am with fellow commuters deciding that maybe they should go back to travelling by car.

Not a very good thing for kids to see..or anyone for that matter. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

[Guest]

Tobacco stores all over the place, liquor stores all over the place, ugly, ugly, ugly.....

Here is the latest report I can find re Washington State:

Marijuana Legalization in Washington State: One-Year Status Report

New Report Finds Major Fiscal Benefits, Decrease in Violent Crime, No Increase in Youth Marijuana Use or Traffic Fatalities – And Massive Drop in Marijuana Arrests

Popular Support for Marijuana Legalization Remains Strong in Washington

As several states consider marijuana legalization initiatives, all eyes are on the initial outcomes of Washington’s marijuana law. In 2012, Washington and Colorado became the first two states to pass laws taxing and regulating marijuana. Wednesday will mark the one-year anniversary of retail marijuana sales in Washington. Adult possession of marijuana became legal on December 6, 2012, 30 days after the passage of I-502, the voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana for adults 21 and older. A year-and-a-half later, the first retail marijuana store opened its doors on July 8, 2014.

A new report by the Drug Policy Alliance brings good news for the state and the broader marijuana legalization movement by highlighting data on public safety, youth marijuana use, and the economy before and after passage of I-502. Since adult possession of marijuana became legal eighteen months ago, the state has benefitted from a dramatic decrease in marijuana arrests and convictions, as well as increased tax revenues. During the same period, the state has experienced a decrease in violent crime rates. In addition, rates of youth marijuana use and traffic fatalities have remained stable.

“Marijuana prohibition has been a costly failure—to individuals, communities, and the entire country,” says Tamar Todd, Director of Marijuana Law and Policy at the Drug Policy Alliance. “Washington should be praised for developing a smarter, more responsible approach to marijuana.”

The report’s key findings include:

• Filings for low-level marijuana offenses are down 98% for adults 21 and older. All categories of marijuana law violations are down 63% and marijuana-related convictions are down 81%.
• The state is now saving millions of dollars in law enforcement resources that were previously used to enforce marijuana laws.
• Violent crime has decreased in Washington and other crime rates have remained stable since the passage of I-502.
• Washington has collected nearly $83 million in marijuana tax revenues. These revenues are funding substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, youth and adult drug education, community health care services, and academic research and evaluation on the effects of marijuana legalization in the state.
• The number of traffic fatalities remained stable in the first year that adult possession was legalized.
• Youth marijuana use has not increased since the passage of I-502.
• Washington voters continue to support marijuana legalization. Fifty-six% continue to approve of the state’s marijuana law – about the same as when it was approved in 2012 – while only 37% oppose, a decrease of 7 points since the election of 2012. More than three-quarters (77%) believe the law has had either a positive impact or no effect on their lives.

In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first two U.S. states – and the first two jurisdictions in the world – to approve ending marijuana prohibition and legally regulating marijuana production, distribution and sales. In the 2014 election, Alaska and Oregon followed suit, while Washington D.C. passed a more limited measure that legalized possession and home cultivation of marijuana (but did not address its taxation and sale due to D.C. law). The Drug Policy Alliance and its electoral arm, Drug Policy Action, worked closely with local and national allies to draft each of these initiatives, build coalitions and raise funds. Voters in several states, including California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada and Maine, are expected to consider similar marijuana legalization initiatives on the 2015 and 2016 ballots.

“By shifting away from unnecessary marijuana arrests and focusing instead on public health, Washington is better positioned to address the potential harms of marijuana use, while also diminishing many of the worst harms of the war on drugs,” added Todd.

As support for marijuana reform increases and attitudes shift, the Drug Policy Alliance is encouraging news outlets to use images that accurately reflect modern-day marijuana consumers and has released free, open-license stock photos and B-roll footage for editorial use.

DPA Fact Sheet: Why is Marijuana Decriminalization Not Enough?

DPA Fact Sheet: A Comparison of the World’s First Three Jurisdictions to Legally Regulate Marijuana: Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay

[flyinghigh]

Successive governments would agree with you DEFCON. However, there is a valuable public service that public radio serves that successive governments find inconvenient and that is the inability to control the message while ordinary people are listening to critiques of government activities.

In my view, the CBC is sadly a shadow of its former self, having been starved into submission from (if I recall), Mulroney, on. I don't watch CBC television (or any commercial television), but we listen to CBC exclusively as it still has very thoughtful and interesting programs to offer, even though it has taken up the need to use sporadic advertising to supplement its funding.

Obviously I don't agree that the CBC should go the way of, etc., but I can understand why people feel that way given how the CBC has had to compromise its politics to stay alive. The recent scandals not only are unfortunate but show that the leadership and management of the CBC do not have its eye on the ball with regard to the defence of ts original purpose which is to be true to the notion of "public radio".

It sure is interesting following the news on CBC.

It is the day after the announcement of a huge issue that most say is a huge issue for Canada, the TPP. The protesting dairy farmers seem to have been satisfied and admittedly, the auto parts supply sector will be affected although there is potential for them with other markets. You may be opposed to it or you may support it but it is a big deal regardless and it appears to favour the governing party overall in terms of the public's view of it.

So I decided to update myself on the news at CBC, after all one major party is opposing this agreement and another won't commit as it might make it look like a partial endorsement of the governing party's economic plan.

A quick look at the webpage shows the TPP far down the page, although the article is positive. Higher up is an article on the Niqab and how anti-muslim hatred has been unleashed, a story that the CBC has been trying to push for a while now about the conservative party and their supposed association with KPMG to help with tax evasion, an article about fake Roma refugees being intercepted prior to boarding their flights in the EU to Canada with an obvious overtone of racism, and an interview with former newfie PM Danny Williams badmouthing Harper.

The CBC has completely abdicated its role as an unbiased observer and it is blatantly obvious. Perhaps it starts with Mansbridge who I am sure would be very happy with the opposition promises to restore the funding of this 1 billion plus dollar a year entity.

I understand that the media has a role to play which will not make any party overall by reporting news that puts one party or another in a bad light when it is news. But it is obvious that anything beneficial to the party that cut its funding is minimized and anything that puts the governing party in a bad light is maximized. The opposite is true for the parties that want to restore funding to the CBC.

There has been talk of this in years gone by but as a decided voter I wouldn't say that it was obvious but it is extremely obvious in this election. The CBC news team as a whole is UNPROFESSIONAL and has done its best to become the mouthpiece of the opposition while throwing in as little as it can in order to try to be able to defend itself as a neutral observer.

This is your billion dollars of tax money per year at work for you. Perhaps that money could be used for compensation for the dairy producers.

http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/406854-the-senate-report-on-the-cbc/page-2?hl=australia

[Guest]

flyinghigh: The CBC seems to have taken the promises from the other parties to give them more money and turned their back on "neutral", mind you that should not be a surprise based on their previous coverage of our currently elected Government.

Remember they are still refusing to tell us, those who pay their bills, how they spend their money and how much and to whom they pay the top $$$$$.

[flyinghigh]

Why no screaming from the opposition parties. They haven't offered more of your money to senators, why more of your money to the CBC.

"CBC boss, Hubert Lacroix, admits expense claims broke rules

OTTAWA - A day after Sun News host Brian Lilley reported that CBC President Hubert Lacroix repaid almost $30,000 in bogus travel claims, Lacroix admitted the claims were "clearly out of bounds."

"I take full responsibility for it because I'm the boss of CBC-Radio Canada," Lacroix said on-air on the state broadcaster on Friday.

Lilley reported last week that Lacroix quietly paid back $29,678.11 in inappropriate expenses last September for hotels, meals and other expenses for work at CBC headquarters in Ottawa - away from his Montreal home.

Lacroix also said he didn't feel he needed to make the repayment public until Friday.

"There was an error inside our shop," he said. "Everybody that had to know knew."

Lacroix's claims violated CBC bylaws, and came on top of Lacroix's $1,500 monthly living allowance, car allowance, club memberships and annual salary between $350,000 and $421,000.

Lacroix said neither he nor anyone else at CBC knew his claims broke the rules until an audit last summer."

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/22/cbc-boss-hubert-lacroix-admits-expense-claims-broke-rules

[Guest]

other parties not screaming as they don't want to alienate one of their biggest supporters.... who can use tax payer $$$$ to dis the Conservatives. But on the other hand it is not only the CBC, the other "News" sources are doing much the same ..... remember the "Press" and our current PM have never had a "Love Affair".

[Lakelad]

.

No! - there must be some mistake...

Here’s how Apple, Nike and others avoided $620 billion in taxes

Tue Oct 6, 2015 - MarketWatch
By Robert Schroeder - Fiscal policy reporter

Big U.S. companies are holding more than $2.1 trillion in profits overseas and are avoiding paying about $620 billion in U.S. taxes, according to a study released Tuesday.

The study by liberal groups Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. PIRG Education Fund found that nearly three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies had at least one tax-haven subsidiary in 2014. Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were the most popular tax-haven destinations.

Companies including Apple, Nike and Pepsi were named among the “worst offenders” by the groups. Apple, for example, reportedly has booked more than $181 billion offshore, more than any other company. That has allowed the iPhone maker to avoid over $59 billion in U.S. taxes, according to the report.

The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%. In 2013, Apple CEO Tim Cook told a Senate panel that the company pays all the taxes it owes and said that bringing its overseas cash back to the U.S. would be “very expensive.” He called for a single-digit percentage if foreign earnings were to be repatriated.

The report comes a day after the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released a plan that aims to end tax shelters and require companies to pay taxes in the countries where they earn profits.

There is also movement in Congress to give corporations a one-time tax break on overseas profits to finance a sweeping infrastructure package. Corporate taxes are figuring into the presidential race as well, with Donald Trump, for example, calling for a one-time repatriation of cash held abroad.

The report said multinationals’ use of tax havens allows them to avoid about $90 billion in federal income taxes a year.

.

[Guest]

Thank god it is only US Taxes now if it was money owed to Canada then I could really get **bleep**!!!!!!

[Boney]

Quote..."The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%."...Yet, both the Liberals and the NDP want to increase the top personal tax rate to ~55%.

Makes you wonder.

[mo32a]

The top corporate rate is about 35% but nobody pays that. On average they pay about 19%.

[mrlupin]

Quote..."The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%."...Yet, both the Liberals and the NDP want to increase the top personal tax rate to ~55%.

Makes you wonder.

What is the purpose of your comparison?

You are comparing corporate taxes in the US vs personal taxes in Canada.

[Boney]

It's not that different in Canada. In my opinion, the governments have got it all wrong when it comes to taxes. The more they tax their citizens, the less disposable income used to support the economy.

Taxes should be greatly reduced to the point where many don't pay any taxes, and the maximum tax on citizens/corporations could be no more than 10%. The citizens will not only have enough to save, but have extra to spend on stuff that will enhance the economy. Corporations will be able to grow their businesses.

To offset the reduction in income tax, increase the GST/PST, or consumption tax, which could be as high as 30%. Yes, the "rich" will have more money in their pockets but they will spend it. With the consumption tax being this high, it will prevent business from increasing their prices of goods as consumers have a finite amount of funds.

Dare to dream.

[DEFCON]

Considering the fact that we're not supposed to be paying income taxes at all, but are ....

[boestar]

and no one has the spine to fight that fact.

[Guest]

RE income tax.

Not sure why anyone would think we are not supposed to pay income taxes in Canada, at least based on the following.

Wartime expenses forced the Tories to re-consider their options and in 1917, the wartime government under Sir Robert Borden, imposed a "temporary" income tax to cover expenses. Despite the new tax the Canadian government ran up considerable debts during the war and were unable to forego income tax revenue after the war ended. With the election of the Liberal government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, much of the National Policy was dismantled and income tax has remained in place ever since.​

The constitutional authority for the federal income tax is found in section 91 paragraph 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which assigns to the federal Parliament power over "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation".

The constitutional authority for the various provincial income taxes is found in section 92 paragraph 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which assigns to the legislature of each province the power of "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes". The courts have held that "an income tax is the most typical form of direct taxation".^[3]

​

[boestar]

Ok so what about things like double Taxation? Why is the tax paid on a vehicle every time it changes hands. That is taxing a product more than once in its lifecycle which is supposed to be a violation of the act yet it still happens.

or what about taxing tax. Not supposed to do that either but it still happens.

Our country is in DESPERATE need of Tax reform. A Flat Tax is the fairest form of income tax. EVERYONE pays X% no deductions period. That way the high income earners pay a higher dollar amount than the low income earners but still the same percentage. The a VAT / HST type tax on products with exemptions like we used to have before we harmonized.

[dagger]

A Flat Tax is the fairest form of income tax. EVERYONE pays X% no deductions period. That way the high income earners pay a higher dollar amount than the low income earners but still the same percentage. The a VAT / HST type tax on products with exemptions like we used to have before we harmonized.

I haven't seen an economist outside of rightwing think tanks that doesn't believe a flat tax is a sop to the rich who would get a whopping tax cut while the rest actually end up paying more. In Canada, ending deductions would savage a the poor and middle classes. Start by eliminating the basic personal exemption. Who misses $11,000 more, the poor or the rich? Tax all profit on the sale of your principal residence - right now, you can sell your house and pay no capital gain, but with a flat tax/no exemption, not only would you pay tax on the sale, it would not be a capital gain since the concept of capital gain shouldn't exist if we have a flat tax/no exceptions. So the profit would be fully taxed as income. No RRSP deduction - who misses it more, the rich person who doesn't really need to save for retirement because he's living large already, or the average Joe or Jane who needs help and encouragement to set aside a small proportion of his//her disposable income for later use.

Even Adam Smith argued that the rich should pay proportionately more in tax than everyone else because the system has helped them reach the status they enjoy.

One thing I'be found is that the right is always trying to sell us on less tax somewhere. We were told that lowering corporate taxes would spur investment. We now have a corporate tax rate - federally and provincially - that in most provinces is up to 10 percentage points below the US rate. Yet, the US economy is doing far better in business investment terms than Canada. With our lower corporate tax rate, if it means anything, we should have been seeing a boom in business investment, and US corporations should be tripping all over themselves to move head offices and the like to Canada. It's not happening, because in the end, corporations prefer direct subsidies to create jobs - it looks better to shareholders to tell them we sweated some government for hundreds of millions of dollars to set up a new plant. A lower corporate tax rate simply gets buried in the increased profit of large corporations. Ir's not reinvested and only a small proportion sees its way to shareholders in the form of increased dividends. Which, of course, benefits shareholders but not the public at large.

[Lakelad]

.

Harper’s capitulation to multi-millionaire supply management farmers

The government will be enriching multi-millionaire supply management farmers at the expense of poverty-line consumers

Thu Oct 8, 2015 - Financial Post
Morris Dorosh

Dairy Farmers of Canada, the national milk board, should have congratulated the federal government and expressed its most heartfelt thanks for the Herculean effort that Canadian trade negotiators made to protect supply management interests at the Trans Pacific Partnership, and also for the unbelievable windfall of government compensation for losses that are highly unlikely to occur. Instead it complained that the milk displaced by imports will not be produced in Canada, with “perpetual lost revenue.” New subsidy schemes so lavish as to be outlandish have merely “lessened the burden.”

Chicken Farmers of Canada was “disappointed” with the additional access to the Canadian market for foreign poultry. In a distortion clever enough to have come from Moscow, it said Canada will be required to increase its market access for chicken by 28 per cent, “a heavy hit.” In fact it is being exposed to imports, over a period of five years, equal to about 30 hours of chicken production annually. Even with extortionist pricing that retards consumption, natural market growth will completely subordinate that amount.

When the Crow benefit was cancelled by the Chretien Liberal government in 1996, 240,000 western Canadian grain farmers and land owners were given $1.2 billion, between $7 and $33 per acre, in dribs and drabs, for the permanent loss of a grain freight subsidy worth $600 million a year. If it were today, in current dollars it would be around $1.8 billion. Since farms and land holdings have become larger, perhaps 150,000 recipients would qualify, receiving an average of maybe $12,000 each for all time.

The Harper government has committed to giving a typical dairy farmer about $11,000 a year for 10 years, an average chicken producer $5,600 a year, a turkey farmer $5,900 and an egg producer $4,800. These are subsidies in addition to the monopoly privileges granted by a system that allows producer-run marketing boards to systematically undersupply the domestic market and routinely overcharge it. It is entirely within the practical authority of marketing boards to reduce production and increase prices over time to completely erase any price or profit consequence from the tiny amount of imports and this is exactly what they will do.

'Supply management is a variation on the theme of trade unionism'

.

[flyinghigh]

A lower corporate tax rate simply gets buried in the increased profit of large corporations. Ir's not reinvested and only a small proportion sees its way to shareholders in the form of increased dividends. Which, of course, benefits shareholders but not the public at large.

Any economist with minimal knowledge will tell you that lower expenses for a business means that they can sell stuff at a lower price and still make a profit. Assuming that there is competition that is actually interested in competing(which applies to most but not all areas of business)the savings will be passed on to the consumer. Raise expenses(whether taxes, rent, cost of purchase of material, cost of power, etc) and prices for the consumer will rise.

I would have thought that you would understand that. Economics 101. Many who love to raise taxes don't understand this. Look at Ontario.

[dagger]

Any economist with minimal knowledge will tell you that lower expenses for a business means that they can sell stuff at a lower price and still make a profit. Assuming that there is competition that is actually interested in competing(which applies to most but not all areas of business)the savings will be passed on to the consumer. Raise expenses(whether taxes, rent, cost of purchase of material, cost of power, etc) and prices for the consumer will rise.

I would have thought that you would understand that. Economics 101. Many who love to raise taxes don't understand this. Look at Ontario.

Yes, tell me how the banks have lowered fees since their profits are constantly rising. Or the oil companies. As for Ontario and taxes, corporate taxes in Ontario have gone down, and are at the lower end of those applied by all provinces and territories. Maybe you could have done a bit of research.

But since you didn't, I'll help you

The lower rates on this table applies to small businesses. The higher rate applies to all other corporations.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/crprtns/rts-eng.html

As you can see, BC has the lowest corporate tax rate at 11%, Ontario is at 11.5%. Others are higher.

[Guest]

Dagger, comparing the oil companies who rely upon Market (commodity) price with the banks who don't is just plain wrong.......

Re Provincial rates, should you not include Alberta and Quebec?

http://www.albertacanada.com/business/overview/competitive-corporate-taxes.aspx

​