Democrats not left-wing

The Clueless One is so far to the right that the corporate media looks left to him. The Democrats are not left wing, Clueless, they are a centre-right party. They are simply the other wing of the Corporate Party.

Whatttttttttttt

You've got to be joking.

America

Ron, do you ever talk about Canada at all? Do you ever even think about Canada?

The Canadian media is far from left-wing, or "liberal" to use your American term. The papers are slavishly devoted to a right-wing audience and then blame the internet because leftees stopped reading them. CKNW can't understand why they're no longer "top dog" as they hire someone even further to the right whenever there's an opening.

Think about it Ron, you have to come to this website to find a point of view you disagree with, in my opinion that's a sad state of affairs.

stat-twistics

I was unaware that members of the media divulged which way they voted.

Oh, IAMC, you should tell your handlers that the talking points you're being given are making you sound desperate.

Facts???

The Liberal Party is LEFT WING! That's just nuts.

You must be joking.

You're still not dealing with the fact, realisticman

That you said the Liberal Party was left-wing. Or with the point Simpson made - that this nonsense is a WESTERN CANADIAN affectation.

I'd urge you to consider, in your answer, the close collegial and familian ties between the Campbell government here in BC and the Federal Liberal Party.

I'm waiting for an actual response instead of spinning in place.

That you said the Liberal Party was left-wing.

gwest, give me my quote again, if you can find it. or, was it jeff's?

Why? you posted it

Presumably because you didn't agree with what he was saying, right?

Because this is what YOU ended with:

Remember.

The simple facts are that the major media - all of them - are much more likely to lean 'right' than left. There are exceptions to this in Quebec, but not in English Canada.

Generally, with the exception of the examples Simpson notes, everyone accepts this as a foregone conclusion.

Try watching any of the newsmagazine shows on TV and look at the way:
a) they cover the military in Afghanistan, and,
b) the NDP, the Greens or anything to do with business

To suggest the opposite (or, from what you seem to be implying now) that the media in this country is centrist is absurd.

The NDP seems likely to lose the election in Saskatchewan on November 7 - have a look at the coverage then and you'll see what I mean.

I shouldn't have to make the necessary connections for you

There has NEVER BEEN A LEFT-WING government in this country, remember. The logical extension of your statement is clear.

You're not in the UK any more - where there have been several left wing (not including Blair's) governments. Thankfully, we've never had a Maggie Thatcher here either - but Pee Wee Rambo's is gearing up to try and bring that horror here to Canada. In my opinion.

I know, if he's elected, we're going to need someone like Arthur Scargill in this country to provide some leadership and say things like this:

"...(what we) need is not marches, demonstrations, rallies or wide associations, all of them are important. What (we) need is direct action. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we'll begin to change things."

didn't agree with what he was saying, right?

Wrong. I agree with him and that's why I quoted him!

Remember, The Globe & Mail endorsed the re-election of the Glen Clark NDP.

Very Strange!

If you agree with this:

from Simpson. Which you quoted and then proceeded to take to task.

How do you square it with this:

from realisticman.

I think Simpson is saying there is no liberal left wing bias in the national media --- except in the fevered minds of certain individuals out west.

What, exactly are you saying?

Because I think it's hard to maintain both points of view in the same breath.

Can West is relatively smaller and new?

You really aren't familiar with newspapers in this country. Canwest is just, mostly, the old Southam Chain - it's been around for donkey's years.

I commented on what you posted + your remarks. I'll have a look at Simpson's piece later, but, on the basis of what you posted the impression given was, and still is, confused

My conclusion was drawn from what you said and the indented quotation you attributed to Jeff Simpson - that's all. I'm drawing the only logical conclusion possible on the basis of the material YOU provided.

Agreed?

Au Contraire

I'm quite familiar with Southam, in fact a few years ago I knew one of the Southam clan quite well and I have also done work for Southam. I remember very well when they sold to Hollinger who sold to CanWest just six years ago. [That's why I said relatively new]. The Globe & Mail has been, more and sometimes less, under the Thompson wing for over 25 years and the Toronto Star has been a Torstar property for about 50 years.

The tone of the original Southam papers has evolved as the owners have changed.

I see nothing confusing in my observations of Jeffrey Simpson's observations, nor that of the majority of the Canadian newsprint arena.

Realisticman

Except for the lack of evidence, neither do I.

As I said, Frank

The largest circulation in Canada is the Star and they have always supported the Liberals over the Conservatives. The second largest circulation is The Globe that has also always supported the Liberals nationally and even supported Glen Clark and the BC NDP. If you insist on being myopic I'm disappointed and suprised.

There is more

There is a growing amount of the chattering class that is beginning to realize that liberal bias in the MSM is a given.
Balanced against those that are so lazy that all they can do is attack Canwest, the great conservative thinkers are making a case.
Let's face it, there is more to the blogging world than this site.
I am sure we are all intelligent enough to know about websites like newsbusters.org , who make a living exposing liberal bias in the media.
Is there someone on the other side exposing conservative bias in the media?
Rather than visit Media Matters, try Free Rupublic.
Try realclearpolitics over moveon.org.
It's a battle out there.
This cannot be discounted as fluff.
Conservatives are up to the fight, so prepare yourselves for a further assault to your sensibilities.

Realisticman

The TO Star is but one paper and focuses on Ontario. The number of non-TO Star papers outnumber the TO Star by a huge majority in circulation numbers.

Also, they do not support the NDP. This is the point which I assume leads you to say I'm being myopic but its the central one. So let's go over it.

Preferring the Liberals over the Conservatives does not make a paper left-wing, and to be clear, it also doesn't mean the paper isn't right wing.

As I've argued on this forum for years and in innumerable posts, the Liberals are a right wing party both provincially and federally. They are practically indistinguishable from the Cons once elected. And that is important that we set aside Liberal rhetoric and look only at the record.

So if a paper endorses the Libs, to me its just more proof they're a right-wing editorial bunch. Because the Libs are indeed a right-wing party as well as the natural governing party so it doesn't surprise me in the least they would be the favourites of the right-wing media establishment in this country. I would guess that the Right is happy with either the Libs or Cons in equal measure.

As for the Globe and the NDP, why not mention that the Van Sun endorsed the NDP in 1991?

What's important to add is that at no time did the Sun and the Globe support actual left-wing policies. In the case of the Sun they endorsed the NDP simply because the Socreds had been such a disaster and there was no alternative (although given a few more weeks Gordon Wilson might have won).

Ideologically, the media in this country have spoken with pretty much one voice for decades and it hasn't been in favour of Keynes, Woodsworth, socialism or mixed economies.

The Globe and Mail

Isn't under the Thompson wing at all. The G&M is owned by Bell GlobeMedia. Thompson sold it in January of 2001.

You clearly know bugger all about the history of the print media in Canada. The Globe and Mail has always been a Tory paper. It now seems to have pretensions of being politically eclectic but it's really just the same old business friendly paper.

The suggestion that the Globe has always supported the Liberals is absurd. It was a conservative paper from the time the Globe merged with the Mail and the Empire before the beginning of the 20th Century.

If you want to learn about the history of Canadian papers, this pdf from McGill is a good place to start.
http://media-observatory.mcgill.ca/pages/reports/OMPP%20Newspaper%20Ownership%20(v1,%20Aug%202005).pdf

IAMC

Especially Rush and Hannity. Once we get those two liberals off the air we can replace them with real conservatives so as to return balance to the MSM.

Lazy like a fox. We're so clever and lazy we try to cover the fact that the MSM is communist by making sure the owners, editors and columnists are all libertarians.

You lie.

How do they do that? They actually earn money that way? Who would pay for that? Oh, right, you.

F.A.I.R.? Everyone?

That's "Free Republic" and I encourage everyone to visit it at least once.

Those brave brave conservatives, only controlling business, government, media and most of the wealth. Brings tears to the eyes when I ponder their struggle. The word "heroes" is just not strong enough.

By the way, r/man

I can't open the Jeff Simpson column so I guess I can't read it r/man. I refuse to pay any paper for access to their online content - with the exception of the New York Times - for which I paid subscription fees for years - until they dropped the fee in August.

I still don't think I have any idea what you were trying to say with your point about Jeff Simpson.

BTW your arguments about the media being left wing (or liberal) in this country are about as convincing as Ron's little set of talking points above us here.

GWest - Bugger All, you say

Well you knew bugger all about my connections to Southam. Where I've been published.

Again, just a bit behind the times, West. I must say that I find your comment, "bugger all", a mite offensive.

Perceptions and editing biases but are you sure you stand by the bugger all comment?

I can't open the Jeff Simpson column

Well I'm so sorry, GWest. If you'd told me before that you didn't even know what we were talking about I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to advise you as to how you had, once yet again, gone wrong.

After todays tax cuts perhaps you'll be able to scrape deeper into your pocket for a few coins and buy the paper you so readily poo, poo. Or will you be returning your tax cut to the Treasury?

Did Thompson sell to Bell in 2001?

It's a common British term - you shouldn't find it very unusual and it perfectly describes what you’ve been writing - furthermore, I never commented about your connections to the Southam family. Moreover, the fact you may have known a member of the Southam family, or the Sifton Family or Montagu Black or even Barbara Amiel for that matter doesn't mean you possess any knowledge about the history of the press in this country. I happen to know Peter Newman moderately well – big bloody deal.

And furthermore, the fact they've published “you”, an anonymous poster who signs himself 'realisticman', doesn't cut much ice with anyone. Was it a letter to the editor? I couldn't care less. You simply don't know what you're talking about when you suggest that the corporate media in Canada are anything but business-oriented, profit fixated and right wing - and always have been.

With the single exception of the Toronto Star, this was, historically, more like the Guardian foundation in Manchester.

No more of course - it's just another nameless faceless corporate entity that doesn't give a damn for anything but shareholder value.

The Globe is historically a TORY paper not a Liberal one as you erroneously wrote above.

Moreover, you've never once addressed the fundamental point, which is that there is no essential difference between Liberals and Conservatives in this country.

What is up with you?

You posted this comment - including a quotation from Jeff Simpson - appended to remarks which were apparently your own that made little or no sense.

I gave you, politely, several opportunities to clarify - you asked me to refer to Jeffrey Simpson's column which I tried but failed to gain access to.

Now you've got your knickers in a knot about the fact that "I" don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Give me strength - either you have a sustainable point or you don't. It's not your time you're wasting - it's mine.

You're joking, right?

AND NO

I'm not in the least impressed by tax cuts. We need TAX Reform in this country - finding ways to hand more ill-gotten gain to the idle, forelock tugging rich in this country will solve absolutely nothing. Are you so obtuse as to not know precisely what I think of the record of the last 30 years?

I am almost to the point of hoping for a crash along the lines of 1929 to wipe out the idiots who've taken over from the inbred royalty of the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution - like Arthur Scargill I think it's time for some direct action.

As we get old, West

We have to learn to calm down. As a friend I'll remind you of that. You're getting all flustered and spouting off all sorts of different accusations and changing the core subject with your persistent questioning each time you slip up. Watch your heart. Yes, your information was a few years out of date but don't worry. We all make mistakes, as you well know. No it wasn't a letter. A few features, etc. Before they went for Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, let's wait and see who the Globe endorses next time.

What are you talking about?

As we get old - kindly speak for yourself. My information was not out of date and you haven't a clue about the news media in this country or you wouldn't have made such an set of absurd and completely wrong statements:
That hit about Southam papers and their 'newness' - the only “new” paper in the Canwest fold is Black's creation - the National Post; about the fact that the Globe has traditionally been a Tory paper and the fact that there is no difference between the way Liberals and Conservatives do business in this country.

The Thompson family has had bugger all to do with running the Globe since they sold it to BellGlobe Media - the fact that Woodbridge is the largest shareholder at the moment notwithstanding - Torstar also owns 20% and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan holds 25%. The big change for the Globe took place when BCE acquired almost 70% of the shares as of the date I mentioned. Correct? The Corporation is completely different now – consisting as it does of Sports franchises, CTV and the like….as well as the Globe and Mail…

Now, about that confusing post and the discontinuous Simpson quotation?

The implication that you stopped writing a 'few features' for the Globe because they started to support Chretien IS really funny though.

I hope you paid a lot of attention to the record of the Mulroney government and the investigation of the Air India disaster - that's a detail that often gets dumped on Liberal toes these days - quite unjustifiably too.

Ian

Another slash and grab job - more name calling and few facts.

Why don't you have a look at this:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/04/27/000094946_0104140845140/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

Try to get a picture of what the situation in Venezeula was when Chavez was first elected - and tomorrow I'll post something that describes what he's actually achieved.

Would that be too difficult - or do you have to ask Terry's permission to actually think for yourself these days?

And, if you think so negatively about Tyee - why bother even reading the stuff?

I'm surprised to see you reading something like Canadian Dimension - material like that could turn you into a pinko you know.

Ever the stooge to a strongman

West: As usual, making excuses for any thug who makes leftist noises and pokes Uncle Sam in the eye. I've read enough to conclude that Chavez's undemocratic behaviour -- whether rewriting the constitution, ruling by decree or squelching opposition voices -- makes him insupportable. My thoughts, principles and conclusions are my own. If you want a democratic, left-leaning Latin American reformer, look at Lula da Silva.

The Tyee was once a promising new voice. In the last couple of years, it's slipped into being an organ of, and for, stuck-in-1968 wannabe radicals and guilt-ridden upper-middle-class urbanites.

I'm not making excuses for anyone

As far as poking Uncle Sam in the eye goes, I had no idea you were such a supporter of George Bush. You might want to consider that fella's reputation as someone who rules by decree himself – on certain items like torture he hasn’t got much of a reputation anymore either. On balance, someone like you who avoids making a real case for anything while slinging mud and personal opprobrium at anyone who doesn't buy your facile reasoning usually hasn't got much to anyway. Last week 'everywhere' was ‘Adbusters’ and 'The Nation'; now you've added 'The Monthly Review' and 'Canadian Dimension' to the list. When do we get the skinny on the Boston Globe and the Guardian, George Monbiot and Bill Moyers? So many terrible people with plans to ruin the world out there – how DO you sleep at night?

Just read the material; or is it full of lies too? Perhaps you'll get an idea of what the circumstances on the ground were like when Chavez was elected and, you'll remember, he was seized and held by right wing elitists while your friends in America diddled and couldn't decide 'what' to do. Great ‘democrats they have in Venezuela!

Remember that. You should be careful about which 'undemocratic thugs' you throw in with.

Realisticman

I get up and find you posted no response? No disagreements then?

Ian King

Is Chavez the only world leader you don't like?

siamdave

Nice to see your comments and I read your link.

Frank

I presume your request for a response refers to your quote above. I cannot answer. I have the circulation figures which I posted above but as to editorial endorsements you probably should ask GWest, he seems to know everything.

Short of a government grant for more study your enquiry remains unanswered.

Thank you Realisticman

I accept your apology.

Given the fact that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are, by definition and certainly by practice, right wing parties and since, so far as I'm aware not a single major daily has EVER told its readers to vote for the NDP in a Federal election - I'd have to say 100%.

No grants needed - the answer is obvious. I’ll ‘pass’ on sending you a bill for services rendered today – deal?

Out of date

GWest

Correct then, 2001, but this is now and in 2005:

TORONTO, Ontario – December 2, 2005
The current shareholders of Bell Globemedia –
The Woodbridge Company Limited and BCE Inc. today announced that Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Torstar Corporation will join them as shareholders in Canada’s leading multi-media company.

Woodbridge, the Toronto-based holding company of the Thomson family, will increase its ownership from 31.5 percent to 40 percent.

“The Thomson family, through its steady ownership interest
in The Globe and Mail, has long demonstrated a deep respect for editorial independence,
journalistic freedoms and the importance of great newspapers to our nation."

So your data is out of date. As I tried to tell you before. You are also wrong misreading what I wrote. I never said I'd written for the Globe, I worked on some projects with Southam.

Would you not agree that under successive ownership the original Southam papers have changed?

Realisticman

Yes, 30 years ago there was a diversity of opinions expressed. Between Conrad and the Aspers they have moved the editorial and opinion sections of the paper to the Right. I don't believe anyone is arguing otherwise.

Why not read the whole passage

Instead of just picking out the part YOU want to emphasize?

This is all of what I posted, remember:

I'll await your apology for another selective and self-serving redaction, thank you very much.

one last time

George Bush is not America.
Hugo Chavez is not Venezuela.
Stephen Harper is not Canada.
Fidel Castro is not Cuba.
Ahmadinejad and Khameinei are not Iran.

None of the above has a bit to do with an advocate of "media democracy" being in support of a government that are no frends of free speech or press freedom -- both of which are absolute requirements for any sort of "media democracy" in my book. You haven't explained why beating down opposition TV channels is democratic -- instead, you try to change the subject. Rather like arguing about trains running on time.

I'm surprised to find out that I'm a George W. Bush supporter. I challenge G. West to find one thing I've written where I actually praise him.

Frank: There's plenty of world leaders that I dislike.

Frank

GWest wrote this and I thought, as you do, that these papers have changed.

West, your figures are out of date.

No. BCE is down to 20%.

It's here:
http://www.bce.ca/en/news/eventscalendar/webcasts/2005/20051202/

You are still not reading carefully

I said that the big change at the Globe took place when BCE acquired 70% of the shares - as of the date I menitioned (2001)- meaning my first post on the subject.

I'm not in any way disagreeing about what their current holdings are. The Globe is part of an enormous and integrated media megalith now and nowhere nearly what it was prior to the original sale from Thompson to BCE.

Clear now?

Just slow down are read what is actually on the page.

Realisticman

So we agree that the Southam chain after it was purchased by Black and later the Aspers has moved to the Right?

Frank

Of course.

Good News for Workers

Yesterdays corporate tax cut.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR BUSINESS TAXATION

No wonder the Liberals support the tax cut. Surprised that Jack Layton doesn't. The proof seems to be there. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is doing good things for the country and for the workers.

Well Ian,

How would you interpret this?

Ian King.

If you weren't a fan of the POTUS I hardly think you'd make that statement - which is clearly critical - but not of Bush.

I'm glad you clarified.

Are you aware of the fact that Chavez provides cut rate heating oil for poor Americans every winter?

As to what's going on, democratically speaking, I think I'll look to other, less rabid critics...as far as I know Hugo Chavez is the popularly elected leader of his country - a representative democracy - and he's proceeding (with whatever he's doing) in a democratic way.

We don't have term limits in Canada either, remember. Do you suppose Pee Wee will institute them when he gets his coveted majority?

As to the media thing - I do have a friend who speaks and reads Spanish. I'll get him to check out the rags and let you know what's really going on.

Okedoak!

I'm sorry R/man

That's counter-intuitive - as you well know.

The lower tax regimes on corporate earnings - if that thesis had any connection to reality - would have resulted in working and middle class people doing better than they have.

While it may be true that companies increase prices or lower wages in response to changes in tax, there is no evidence that giving tax breaks to the companies has any positive results for incomes - net of inflation.

Besides it really isn't a question of fiddling with rates that's important is it? It's a question of actually 'taxing' corporate income, dividend income, inheritance income and capital gains income equitably with working income.

Rememeber, always, that secretary in Warren Buffet's office - This is class war against working people and the poor by a corrupt and dishonest elite. An elite which tries, as often as possible, to ensure that people sympathetic with its objectives are also running the governments and the media. And for anyone who stands still for that kind of thing it's pretty clear that, despite the nice sounding rhetoric, what they really believe in - exploitation and slavery.

And that's why there needs to be change - forced if necessay - but not necessarily forced.

It's a question of deciding where one stands.

I'm sure you are sorry, West

Knowing how you have such a yearning to tax and tax again, notwithstanding the evidence that this hurts people. Do you perhaps also disagree that in yesterdays financial notice the lowest earners threshold will be raised, so that the poorest will pay less tax?

This study only measures 23,000 companies located in 10 countries. Too small a sample?

Check out their credentials and read the whole study then tell us that they're all wrong.

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/Tax/publications/working+papers/Working+Paper+07+07.htm

Taxes

I think raising the basic exemption above the poverty line would be better for workers than cutting half a percent off income tax. The exemption should be at least $20,000 which would help not only lower income people but all taxpayers.

As for the corporate rate being on its way to 15%, what does lowering the taxes on foreign-owned corporations do for Canadians exactly?

Frank

The study of 23,000 companies seems to conclusively show that the lowering of taxes on corporations leaves room for raising the wages of their workers. Basic balance sheet stuff.

Realisticman

And studies of citizens everywhere show that better government services provide better quality of life. Basic balance sheet stuff.

The question is at what cost?

Does the possibility that a worker might get a small raise due to a company tax cut make up for reduced gov't services for that worker or even higher taxes on the worker to make up for the reduced corporate rate?

If there is no downside, then why not reduce corporate taxes to zero? Or even have gov't pay them to exist since all the money supposedly gets passed on to workers and never leaves the country?

Maybe zero would be good, Frank

New Brunswick has lowered Corporate Tax to 2%. Yes, that's two percent and in September Stats Canada reported:

September 2007

The unemployment rate dipped 0.1 percentage points to 5.9% in September, the first time since November 1974 that the rate has been below 6.0%. The decline in the rate occurred as employment rose by an estimated 51,000, with gains concentrated in full-time employment.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

Correlation

0.1% is so low a number that its within the range of simply being wrong. Also, what's the relationship between a 2% corporate rate (on top of the Canadian corporate rate) and that 0.1% decline in unemployment? That small a change could be the result of anything. But if they're sure, why not change the corporate rate to -10%, meaning New Brunswick citizens pay the corps to exist?

For the sake of argument, gasoline prices (adjusted for the strength of the dollar) are higher than ever yet unemployment is low. Perhaps high gas prices produce low unemployment? In which case let's double the price of gas.

The point being that its wishful thinking to hope that we can have 0% tax and not lose anything. if its not wishful thinking you would get everyone in Canada to agree on no taxes in about 15 seconds.

The point is realisticman

You don't accurately reflect my views. This is unfair and deceptive and that's being polite. My point is and has always been that the current tax arrangements are inequitable and are leading to the concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands. That's the story of the last 30 years R/man and it is UNDENIABLE. So why even bother with posting more nonsense we both know is not going to work and which will, mutatis mutandis, just make this a less-equitable place than it is now. SAD. Especially from someone who sees himself as a caring individual - which I actually respect. Otherwise, I'd pay you no more attention than I do Ron or NLN.

Your system hasn't worked and it isn't going to work simply because it relies more on greed, special deals for a small elite, lies, contempt for the future and the environment and exploitation of 95% of the world's population as the moral equivalent of slaves.

Those facts are simply undeniable. Your way had its chance and it failed miserably - now it's time for YOU and the system to change or get out of the way.

My proposals would without any doubt, simplify and flatten the tax system immediately - and they'd shift the burden for public costs to the shoulders of the free loaders - not the poor. And probably ensure that any family making less than $50G a year paid no tax at all.

Why can't you see that?

I read it all - it won't make a difference because we're already playing with loaded dice. All Flattery just did is put bigger weights in them.

Simple.

Frank

I know facts can get in the way a strong ideology but if you go to the link, above, and also go to the New Brunswick govt. web site under taxes, you'll see that unemployment has gone down - over the years and employment has gone up - as corporate taxes have declined. Now, these are facts. If you'd like to do some research and tell me if the finances or the govt. services of NB have also gone up or down I'm interested.

Realisticman

I'm not the one that pulled a pair of numbers out of the air and said that one is the cause of the other. That's your ideology talking, not mine.

Using your logic its clear to me that the New Brunswick unemployment rate went down 0.1% because of higher gas prices and the war in Iraq.

Oh I see

so the quoting the OXFORD UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR BUSINESS TAXATION and Statistics Canada is just taking numbers out of the air?

0.1% is not the important digit, the lowest since 1974 (thirty years) is.

I'm not a tax expert I just defer to the experts that spend all their time studying.

Realisticman

Yes, I didn't see any connection between your numbers at the StatsCan link. That connection was ideological.

My observation that the NB unemployment rate has moved downward at the same time gas prices has increased (and at the same time as UFO sightings have increased) is just as valid and devoid of ideology to boot.

Speaking of numerical relationships, I suppose the high backlog of cases investigating possible child abuse incidents in BC is not because of cutbacks to the ministry of Children and Families?

Apparently we should just invent connections so maybe its due to personal tax cuts? Or perhaps the high price of gasoline? Or maybe its due to a 2% corporate tax rate in New Brunswick? The war in Afghanistan maybe?

Back up mate!

FRANK, why don't you scroll up and you can see that all my numbers are from a huge study or from Stats Canada. Ideology is inside your mind.

The CCPA study was based on FACTS too

It just happened to show that reducing taxes for corporations and the wealthy didn't do anything for the income of the middle class and left the poor as badly - if not worse off.

Remember. And it's not the tax burden that's created the log jam - it's the fact that all the bloody gold is pouring out of the economy into fewer and fewer hands.

Why would you trust Oxford's 'facts' any more than what you can see with YOUR OWN EYES.

Time to wake up and place the blame where it properly lies.

IT ISN'T WORKING. IT IS GETTING WORSE.

IT'S TIME TO CHANGE HORSES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Let's face what's real and not try creating imaginary connections because some jerk in England comes up with data to support his postulate.

The reality is out there on the streets of Vancouver. A generation ago home ownership was within the grasp of virtually every worker - now it isn't available to anyone who doesn't pull down at least 6 figures annually.

You're smart enough to figure this out on your own - you don't need Oxford to provide another excuse for avoiding the reality of how we've screwed up.

In the US the hedge funds are burning money, tens of thousands of people are losing their homes because the system you believe in lied to them and took advantage of them - FOR PROFIT. The head of Merrill Lynch has resigned in disgrace and he won't be the last one and now the only way they can keep the pot simmering is to pull down interest rates another ¼ of a point. It’s over R/man. The bricks are already falling around our ears.

And the media aren't covering it...but they will.

"Some jerk"

Obviously you failed to read the bios of the three involved in the study of 23,000 companies worldwide. I see. Why defer to experts when we can stroll down the alley behind Pender & Columbia for 'expert' proof.

Here's good one for you West:

"Singapore Airlines has taken the unusual step of publicly asking passengers on its new Airbus A380 plane not to engage in any sexual activities.

The potential problem has arisen because the first class area of its giant superjumbo contains 12 private suites complete with double beds."

Some grist for your mill. Great potential here.

Realisticman

Are you trying to tell me that this blurb below is your only "proof" about corporate tax reductions. I was expecting a link.

Do you believe this? If you do I assume you believe we would be much much richer if we had no taxes? Because that is apparently the thrust of what these 3 people are saying. Do you also believe that they have no ideological ax to grind?

Why has unemployment fallen in all 4 western provinces? New Brunswick's corporate tax cuts?

I'm really curious now, and I know you hate numbers that disagree with your ideology but I couldn't help but notice you never articulated a position on what I said about the handling of child care cases in BC?

Realisticman

Yes, why bother with what we can see when we can read a report "proving" that it doesn't exist.

Where'd you get the 2% number?

By QUENTIN CASEY
Canadaeast News Service
Published Saturday October 20th, 2007
Appeared on page A7

The provincial government cannot afford to make a significant cut to its corporate income tax rate, says New Brunswick's finance minister, despite calls by two leading economists to slash it considerably.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Victor Boudreau emerged from a forum on how taxation levels will affect the government's goal of economic independence from Ottawa.

He was flanked on both sides by two prominent taxation gurus. Their advice: cut corporate tax rates to attract outside investment and thus grow the economy.

But a decrease of the rate is not possible, based on the province's current fiscal state, said Boudreau.

"Any adjustment we make to one level of taxation has to be made up somewhere else. There's only so much money to spend," he said.

"Not a single person has offered to pay more taxes, but everybody wants more services, more infrastructure and more programs ... Maybe down the road we will be looking at more significant changes."

In their first budget, the Liberals jacked taxes across the board.

The provincial corporate rate is now 13 per cent. When combined with the federal rate the total is 35 per cent.

"It's not good for investment, and these high corporate income tax rates can increase the cost of investing in New Brunswick," said Jack Mintz, an economics professor at the J.L. Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. "There's room for a dramatic change in the corporate income tax rate, which I think would do a lot in terms of generating interest in New Brunswick."

"Taxes are like a cost to business and a cost to investment," said Mintz, who addressed senior officials in the Finance Department earlier this week. "I think New Brunswick can take some action."

Still can't find your 2%

New Brunswick gets twice as much revenue from provincial property taxes, 32% more from gas taxes and 8 times more from Equalization that corporate income taxes.

That, coming full circle, is why the corporate tax rate means absolutely nothing.

It is a sure thing that the Irvings and McCain's combined generate at least $2 billion or more in corporate profits each year. The general NB corporate tax rate is 13%. If these two firms paid the 13% rate in New Brunswick that would be $260 million - well above the total take from all companies - from just two firms.

2%?

Corporate tax rates according to this site

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/cantaxadv_e.html

New Brunswick 2002 : 16.0% 2005 : 16.0%

Wages rise because of 2% rate in NB?

http://www.gnb.ca/0160/budget/buddoc2005/E2005_21-e.asp

Although I still can't find mention of a 2% corporate tax rate in New Brunswick I also found that :

Which doesn't seem to jive with your argument that wages rose because of the lowering of corporate tax rates.

2%?

Capital investment in New Brunswick doesn't seem to be doing badly in spite of an effective 35% corporate tax rate.

From the horse's mouth

In the above I showed that the NB corporate tax rate was 16% in 2001 and is 13% now.

The change occurred in the budget of 2003-04, I quote from the NB budget document :

Gasoline versus corporate taxes

Although I said tongue-in-cheek that the price of gas probably has a bigger effect on the NB economy than corporate taxes its interesting to note that gas taxes do in fact bring in more revenue in New Brunswick than corporate taxes.

I read the material you cited Realisticman

I'm just not as twitterpated by Oxford as you are - that's all. I'm not a Brit and I never have any more impressed with Oxbridge Dons and their lisps than I am with the Royal Family. I'd have a pint with a hod carrier or a farmer sooner than tip a glass with most of Oxford’s self-absorbed twits.

There are all kinds of other variables in the analysis, as Frank points out, which could explain the results you attribute to tax changes.

IN fact, as I explained earlier - in Canada the experience has been inapposite relative to the conclusion the Oxford study suggests and it certainly has been in the US as well. I know what's happening right here in Canada from my own travels, experience and observations and Stats Can data confirm this. One only has to look at the wages (net or gross of taxes) of the average working stiff, the cost of modest housing in the area, and the disconnect between the two in order to understand what’s going on. There has been a steady rolling back of corporate tax rates for the past 3 decades – as you must know – and the only people who have benefited are the shareholders and the executives of these companies. Employment in most Canadian firms – far from going up during the period – has declined.

Why would I give any credence to an Oxford Study that clearly uses its chosen data to arrive at a desired conclusion?

Moreover, why can't you actually contend with the situation on the ground in the city and country you actually live in?

As for the Singapore Airlines study - I'm very familiar with the kind of customer Singapore Airlines tries to appeal to. They are precisely the kind of people who care for little apart from their own selfish hedonistic pleasure - why would you be surprised they're screwing at 38,000 feet?

We should all be concerned about what their selfish and needless travel is doing to the atmosphere – let alone the moral state of their fellow passengers. Ground them all.

Employment's Up

Well, GWest, Stats Can says that employment is growing in all areas. What gives?

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor44.htm

twitterpated

New word for me. Went to Oxford a couple of times on business. Read about the study in the Canadian press, big study, worth a look.

I thought you'd never ask

http://www.ofl.ca/uploads/library/jobs-strategies/Opening_Presentation_Notes_-_Wayne_Samuelson,_OFL.pdf

Have a CLOSE look

Realisticman

Don't worry about pulling the 2% thing out of thin air. it happens.

More on job losses - welcome to the 'real' world

http://canadianlabour.ca/updir/The_Manufacturing_Crisis.pdf

Just say 'uncle' if you'd like me to stop.

OK

twitterpated

Out of one's mind in love or affection for some object of desire...

As far as I know - first used in the Disney movie "Bambi" by Thumper the Rabbit.

Realisticman

Probably got a lot of attention in New Brunswick what with their claim that the corporate tax rate there is only 2%.

Realisticman

Really? That is so weird because just hours ago I recall you claiming that the 0.1% unemployment drop in New Brunswick was the result of cutting corporate taxes to 2% and when I suggested that there were lots of other reasons for that tiny little drop you, with ideological blinkers on, declared that I was wrong.

That in fact there was no other reason possible for that tiny 0.1% drop in the unemployment rate except for a fictional corporate tax rate.

Now it appears you've discovered that the rest of Canada also has experienced employment growth.

So to sum up, your argument is that the New Brunswick employment situation is not subject to the same conditions that exist in the rest of Canada?

That its an island to itself, where the only effect on its unemployment rate could be from cutting corporate taxes to 2% (which didn't happen)?

Hmm, what is it about that logic that makes me see a disconnect?

No 'uncle' yet?

Let's look at the Forest Industry.

May I quote:

In 2006, 323 600 people were directly employed in the forest industry—16 300 fewer (4.8%) than in 2005 (Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada) and the lowest since 1993

* The decline since the most recent employment peak in 2003 has been particularly sharp
* Much of the decline since 2003 has been due to mill closures across the country

Indirect and induced employment

Indirect jobs are created by forest activity, but are outside the industry (e.g., from capital investment, transportation of products to markets, purchases of intermediate goods).

Induced jobs are created when workers in the forest industry or those employed in forest-related activities purchase consumer goods.

* In 2006, the forest industry accounted for an estimated 498 800 indirect and induced jobs (compared with 541 500 in 1999)

Further data available here:

http://foretscanada.rncan.gc.ca/articletrend/149?format=print

Now, realisticman, what were you saying about jobs increases? Alternatively, is that statement just another phenomenon like the mysterious missing 2% ?

Someone from the ‘left-wing’ persuasion might just begin to wonder if some of your ‘statistics’ and ‘facts’ are wishful thinking.

Still, I guess you and no-leftnutter can get together and work it out, eh?

Fictional you say. Are you calling me...

Corporate income tax rates

New Brunswick (*9)

Small business 2.5/2 (2005) 2/1.5 (2006)

(9) Rates for small businesses are applicable as of July 1, 2005 and 2006, and the respective SBD limits are $450,000 and $475,000.
Deloitte & Touche LLP (ca_Table of corporate income tax rates 2005-2011_052507.pdf)

---
2006 AND 2007 PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL INCOME TAX RATES FOR INCOME EARNED BY A CANADIAN-CONTROLLED PRIVATE CORPORATION
New Brunswick 2.0/1.5

New Brunswick’s 2005 budget announced that the province’s small business tax rate would decrease from 2% to 1.5% on July 1, 2006 and to 1% on July 1, 2007.

KPMG, May 2007

Seek and ye shall find.

2%

I'm sorry, isn't this your quote?

You even capitalize the words "Corporate Tax". Don't be a weasel, just say you were wrong.

September 2007

The unemployment rate dipped 0.1 percentage points to 5.9% in September, the first time since November 1974 that the rate has been below 6.0%. The decline in the rate occurred as employment rose by an estimated 51,000, with gains concentrated in full-time employment.

Small business

Oh, by the way, what was the small business rate before they dropped it to 2%? Why, it was a whopping 3% in 2003!!!! Wow! No wonder the unemployment rate fell eh?

Interesting to note also that the gas tax brings in 10x that, good thing gas prices don't affect your New Brunswick economy though eh?

And now the small business rate as of July 1st, 2007 has fallen to 1%, saving small business people an incredible $12 million. Its a wonder New Brunswick is still going, what a risk they took.

0.1% is not the important digit, the lowest since 1974 (thirty years) is.

I'm not a tax expert I just defer to the experts that spend all their time studying.

Perhaps its time to find new experts to follow.

What are you trying to say

I should apologize because they dropped it to 1.5% from 2?

Perhaps it's time to actually 'read' the stuff

Before you decide it's the new gospel.

When the conclusions of a study - no matter who does it (even those folks with the upper class accents at Oxford and Cambridge who some people find so impressive) - are totally counter-intuitive to the normal run of things and the less-than admirable inclinations of human nature it is not such a good idea to simply 'defer' to them.

Like the folks at Mike Walker's Fraser Institute, lots of 'experts' - especially economists - bear very close scrutiny.

Some people I know in New Brunswick, from the University in Fredericton, have been witnessing for years the fact that the economy there is significantly depressed for a variety of structural reasons - unless you happen to be an Irving or a McCain.

It's curious that serial lowering of tax rates hasn't seemed to make much difference to the results of that calculation.

Just as, mutatis mutandis, the last severe decline in the economy here in BC had everything to do with the international price of commodities and externalities imposed by the senior government in Ottawa and almost nothing to do with (in fact the reciprocal is true) the actions of the government in Victoria. In fact, without the hard work of those governments the results would have been far worse.

So the next time someone slags the BC government's record in the 1990s I trust you'll remind them how little provincial policy and tax legislation actually impacts the economic fundamentals when more significant forces are in play.

Realisticman

You claimed the "Corporate Tax" rate was 2%. It isn't. You have suddenly decided to claim you were talking about the small business rate.

I'm fine discussing that instead, its even a smaller part of the New Brunswick budget. If you want to claim that dropping the rate from 3% to 2% got New Brunswick running on all cylinders and I'm wrong when I said its probably due to other factors, then sure, go with that line of reasoning. I'll be happy to oblige.

Yes, you should read it

Your class hatred is palpable West but it's not wanted here in regard to the Oxford study. Hardly classic despicable Brits, as you'd call them. The Oxford Study is not what you want to hear so you attack, vicious ad hominem, in spades. It reduces your argument to absolute worthlessness. Here are the bios;

Giorgia Maffini is completing a Ph.D. in Economics at the University of Warwick. She received a B.Sc in Economics and Social Sciences from Bocconi University, Milan (summa cum laude) and a Master's in Economics from University College, London. She has worked as an economist for the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (CTPA) at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris (2004 – 2005). Her current research interests include the incidence of corporate tax on wages and wage differential between domestic and multinational companies.

Wiji Arulampalam is Professor of Economics at Warwick University. Her research interests are Econometrics and Labour and Population Economics. She is a member of the Econometric Society, the Royal Economic Society (Member of Council 2000-2004), and the Society of Labor Economists. She is a Research Fellow at IZA, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, and a member of the steering group – Works, Pensions, and Labour Economics Study Group. She is a member of the editorial board of Foundations and Trends in Econometrics and a past associate editor of Labour Economics: An International Journal.

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/arulampalam

Michael P. Devereux is Director of the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, and Professor of Business Taxation.

He is Research Director of the European Tax Policy Forum, and Research Fellow of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Economic Policy Research. He is an elected Board Member of the International Institute for Public Finance, and is the organiser of its 63rd Annual Congress at the University of Warwick in August 2007. He is Editor-in-Chief of International Tax and Public Finance and Associate Editor of Economics Bulletin.

He gained his PhD in Economics at University College London. Prior to Oxford , he was Professor and Chair of the Economics Departments at the universities of Warwick and Keele. He has been closely involved in international tax policy issues in Europe and elsewhere, working with the OECD's Committee of Fiscal Affairs, the European Commission and the IMF.

His current research interests are mainly concerned with the impact of different forms of taxation on the behaviour of business - for example, the impact of taxation on corporate investment and financial policy and the location decisions of multinationals – and the impact of such behaviour on economic welfare. He has published widely in a range of academic journals.

Thousands More, Frank

There are thousands more small businesses in Canada, including New Brunswick, than there are large businesses. Small businesses employ far more people too.

Revisionism

Except that you weren't talking about small business until this morning.

And for what its worth it doesn't cost New Brunswick anything to cut that tax. Dropping it from 2% to 1.5% is a piddly $12 million. Campbell's convention centre team probably blows more than that on pizzas.

So sure, have no small business tax whatsoever. I'd prefer there was no such tax on the little guy anyway.

Will it wreck the budget? The answer is no. They could raise the gas tax by a couple of pennies to cover it.

Will it rejuvenate the New Brunswick economy? Sure, in right-wing fantasy-land perhaps but no where else.

If anyone thought the small business tax of 3% was crippling the Atlantic province economies all these years the Feds would have said kill the tax and we'll cover your losses.

As I said yesterday, if you want to find the reasons for the decline in NB's unemployment, best to look elsewhere.

The "Class War" is what I'm concerned about

You know the one Warren Buffett is always talking about. I heard him on the radio again this morning - now there's a guy practicing 'class hatred' - I'll bet the folks in the executive suite just hate to hear him telling it the way it really is.

Or maybe he just remembers where he came from and how incredibly lucky and out of character it really is for anyone to achieve that kind of obscene wealth in a stacked system like we have today.

Class Warfare more like - practices by the rich on the poor and the middle class (most of whom aren't smart enough to realize why their lives are a misery despite their possessions and their so-called power.

Slaves they are - more like - doing the bidding of people who care only about profit and nothing else.

No class hatred from me - I love the 99% of the world's people who come from the category I exist in - including all the small businessmen and women right down to the level of Mohammed Unis's little bank(s).

I was just reading a scholarly piece the other day about how thoroughly the mafia has moved into every level of business, commerce and government - including the universities - in Italy.

I was hoping you'd bring up Ms Maffini.

I don't hate anyone r/man - I believe in universal love for everyone - but I also think the rewards and benefits shouldn't be pouring into fewer and fewer pockets all the time.

As a matter of fact, I'd suggest that so called ordinary folks like yourself are the ones practicing class hatred when you parrot the theories and support the methods and the system that is getting us into deeper and deeper water every day.

This country was better, more humane and far more equitable before your kind of class hatred got into gear - I think you, and that system have a lot to answer for.

But I certainly don't hate you. Although I’d really like to hear more about what’s wrong with the economy in New Brunswick. My colleague at the University of New Brunswick says much of the difficulty as a result of the overweening power of the Irvings and the McCains to set prices and determine the terms of measurement in ‘their’ little club.

You might want to check some economists a little closer to home and a little less closely tied to ‘business’ for a more enlightened perspective.

One question: This whole company tax cutting program and cut back in government services was meant to provide more dollars for the people in a general way. You’ve pretty much gotten what you wanted on that score for the last 25 – 35 years you know.

How come the desired results haven’t materialized and all the growth in income and profit has gone to a smaller and smaller group of folks?

Would that program qualify as an illustration of ‘class hatred’? And, you want an example of hatred? Have a look at any of your buddy ‘no-leftnutter’s’ posts – that’s hatred!

Work to do – gotta go!

Why

G West, why do you bother?

Why do you bother Part Deux

It's pretty obvious to me that some people have been innoculated against common sense or facts. I don't know why they bother either, and when it gets right down to it, I don't know why I even bother to read it. It is so repetitive and BORING!

Excuse me while I slap myself for even commenting.

No Facts, thanks - he says

GWest

So you think it's a good idea to ignore this study and tax businesses at a high rate even if it's clear that workers will earn less. OK, I understand your position but I'd like to see workers paid more.

Not exactly. I'm not ignoring the study

Let's be clear.

You cite what my reading and research points to being a highly questionable study that uses tendentious methodology and far from conclusive data to suggest that employees will get more in their pay packets if their bosses get to keep more profits. Correct.

All, and I repeat all, the hard evidence (and not just a 'single' arguably flawed and inconclusive study - ie. even the researchers acknowledge there are other possible explanations for their observations) in both Canada and the States is that cutting back on taxes to corporations does one thing and one thing only.

It allows corporations and their owners to increase their own wealth and play more silly investment games that further benefit no-one but themselves and their own class of executives and capitalists. At the same time - and every measure shows this - actual workers and the middle class, not to mention the poor actually lose ground in terms of total wealth. In most cases real income, net of inflation, has gone down for the people I'm concerned about - ie the majority - while real income and accumulated wealth, net of inflation, has skyrocketed for rich owners and entrepreneurs. IT’S BROKEN – the whole idea of greed as motivation works – the folks with the biggest bank accounts at the start of the game (when the rules changed) still have the biggest accounts – only now they have a much much bigger piece of the total pie than they used to have. Upward mobility, on average, is non-existent: Big surprise. The point is that economists like Galbraith said this would happen before Friedman and his ilk convinced Nixon and Reagan and Maggie Thatcher that this was the way to go. Congratulations. I hope you’re all proud.

You know this is a fact - study after study confirms it - the only way to give workers more is to pay them more - not try to fiddle with their tax bill by bribing their bosses.

If your theory had worked, the situation wouldn't be as it is now and getting worse and I think you know in your heart that's true.

Why any intelligent person would spend his time trying to claim the opposite based on one study is beyond explaining.

Why do you think I said the study is counter-intuitive?

If you want workers paid more you should contact Campbell and ask him why it's okay for him to get a 59% pay raise while he turns down an increase in the minimum wage to $10/hour. C'mon, I mean, get real!

That's what you should be doing instead of playing silly games with nonsense studies.

I mean, think about it for a minute. If reducing taxes to corporate entities were going to result in better pay for workers - why has the exact reverse been the result of the unconscionable reductions in corporation tax we've already had?

re self-flagellation

You got that one right, Kootkoot

Reynolds in the Globe

I found the source of R/man's 2%. Nothing to do with small business, he was misquoting Neil Reynolds in the Globe talking about the Oxford study.

It now has the lowest corporate tax burden, expressed as a cost of doing business, in the country - lower even than Alberta.

It's only a matter of time until capital exits Ontario and heads for New Brunswick. (By contrast further, New Brunswick has lowered its capital tax to 2 per cent.)

I Should have known

Neil Reynolds would be at the bottom of it.
He is the R/man's major squeeze these days - and note this Frank 'he used to be an NDPer'. Mirabile dictu.

MY friends in New Brunswick would ask, respectfully, to remember the Bricklin...My older friends in Ireland would say remember the DeLorean and I'd just point out that we've all been down this road before.

Oh, one other area where there has been no increase in employment r/man - the fishing industry.

More to follow.

POW!

Shooting the messenger(s), again.

Quoi de neuf?

Bricklin, De Lorean

Kinda like Fast Ferries, eh?

Not really - completely different situation

The point is that governments have been trying to chase each other to the bottom by offering tax reductions and tax breaks for decades - you appear to be the only one left who still believes that's anything but a mug's game.

I don't have to shoot that messenger - he shoots himself every time he opens his mouth or pens a column.

You really are funny - instead of just admitting you blew it on that 2% reference - which is, of course, forgivable, you keep trying to make something of a bad situation and end up looking even worse.

Funny actually!