"The Conservative plan is to put us another $6 billion into debt by giving more tax cuts to profitable corporations – when corporate taxes are already low."That is it.
Christ. You would think that Liberals would point out that the annual cost would be 6 billion a year and as such cost would quickly add up to one hell of a lot more than just 6 billion, but that little ditty seems to be lost on the Liberal staffer who wrote the above blurb. They might also have pointed out that 6 billion pays for a hell of a lot of daycare spots.
Moving on. How low is low? It would nice if they put Canada's corporate tax rate into context. At the very least point out that it lower than the States.
How profitable is profitable? Corporate profits in Canada have long been higher than pretty much any where else. Pointing this out would greatly undermine the Conservative position.
6 comments:
hello! how about this backgrounder, for starters:
Harper’s corporate tax cuts not what Canadian families need right now
Posted on January 26, 2011
www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/harpers-corporate-tax-cuts-canadian-families/
plus all their speeches...
My bad, but why is it not listed under economy section proper? No one is going to go to bottom of the page looking through old speeches and news releases to find it. Moreover, even this is still slim pickings. Yes there is graph showing how Canadian corporate tax rates compare to other G7 members. However, there is no mention of just how high coporate profits are in Canada. Goodale's speech is better, but Goodale make it sound like it is the timing of cuts is wrong and of course there is a more reasons to decry such tax cuts than just their timing.
Try this:
Our choice is simple: cash for corporations or cash for kids.
"Our choice is simple: cash for corporations or cash for kids."
That is exactly what they should boil it down to. However, they first have tighten up their child care policy. Right now it is a mess. Promising that they would work out different deal with each province is stupid way to go about. They have to promise something concrete e.g., all day preschool for every 3 and 4 year old in country. People have to know exactly what they are getting. Vague promises will get them no where politically.
I understand your impatience, Koby, but suspect the reason they're keeping the details close to their vest until the writ is actually dropped is:
they learned their lesson the hard way in 2008 'Green Shift' debacle, that if you roll out the detailed platform first, the better staffed, better access to the actual (mostly hidden) governmental financial books, better positioned with the media, & better, more ruthless spinners will...
cost it out with some wildly inflated numbers using worst-case scenarios & misinterpretations & scare the electorate silly by saying how this is a tax on everything that will bankrupt the country.
Why give them a head start. Relatively few are paying attention outside the actual election period. Keep the powder dry.
The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. That was not main problem though.
The kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
Post a Comment