Tax cuts create jobs. Paul Ryan and the Republican nominee Mitt Romney told a group that Canada just cut their corporate taxes to 15%.
Paul Ryan was obviously insinuating that these tax cuts put America at a disadvantage, and that the Canadian economy is going to explode and take all of our jobs. Corporate taxes in 2006 were already just 21%. In January 2011, Canada cut the corporate tax rate to 16.5%, then cut them again to 15% January 2012.
Overall, Canada has cut corporate taxes by almost 30% in 6 years.
The only problem is, the Canadian economy isn’t blasting off at all. It is still stuck in an anemic recovery. just like the United States. The Canadian economy only grew 1.8% in the second quarter of 2012. The United States on the other hand has a much higher statutory corporate tax and the economy grew at 1.7% in the same quarter. How can this be? Higher taxes hurt job creation, right? Yet both countries are stuck in the same slow recovery.
It couldn’t be that it’s all more complicated than just one factor like tax cuts, could it?
Canada’s corporate tax rate is zero, because apart from Tim Horton’s no Canadian company makes a profit.
The US corporate tax rate is zero because all US companies are owned by a parent company registered in the Caymans.
Romney is a freaking moron, almost as bad as Sarah Palin. The GOP must have a death wish
It’s bookkeeping for Sheeple. Shhhh….don’t wake them up now.
In January 2011, Canada cut the corporate tax rate to 16.5%, then cut them again to 15% January 2012.
And cutting taxes on income means nothing if you don’t declare any income.
One of the seven sisters, viz: one of the seven banks that operate in Canada, once declared no taxable income on record profits of a billion dollars that year.
That’s the year I left Canada.
I guess I have to leave the ‘States as well.
Romney’s America would be a place I can no longer live in…
^^ George Clooney wannabee. Talks it, but won’t walk it.
On more serious note (Alec Baldwin … not Clooney, btw).
Romney was the governor of a Blue State. Some of his companies had benefits for same-sex partners well before it was the status quo.
Seriously. You must be drinking teh Kool-Aid.
Romney was all about being a middle of the road Republican while his sights were set on Massachusetts. Once he left the Governor’s mansion, he had right-wing epiphanies on all the required social issues going into the primaries. Pure Etch-a-Sketch.
Why ponder it?
Romney is going to be elected. That gets clearer every day and gets more clear as we approach election day.
It isn’t because of Republicans that Romney will be elected, mostly swing voters that had really high hopes for President Obama that really felt by electing Mr. Obama that things really could change.
Obama hasn’t been all bad, but I’ve been saying for about 6 months the problem with Obama is that he hasn’t been putting forward a real agenda or plan to solve the problems we have.
And I don’t see how someone with an empty slate of ideas is going to be re-elected with a weak economy.
You’re probably right about Romney’s election, and here’s another item to add to your list of reasons why he might be elected… New voter ID laws that have been pushed in some states with Republican legislative majorities. Mike Turzai, a legislator from Pennsylvania, makes it crystal clear what the real benefit of their new voter ID law was in this 23-second video clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=87NN5sdqNt8
Romney seems like a extremely decent man, and according to his wife Ann, he’s the kind who really ought to be above such things and the people who do them, but that shady crowd of Republicans seems to have undue influence over him. We could be watching an oversized after-school special on the harmful effects of peer pressure, it’s just hard to say. I’m still waiting for him to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and do a reset on his positions like his campaign adviser said would happen.
Personally, I’m still arguing the issues with the empty chair beside me. I believe it’s a form of Eastwooding, and it’s all the rage these days 😉
It makes no sense at all to tax what creates wealth. Corporations shouldn’t be taxed at all. 0 dollars. Corporations should not be a taxable entity: period.
Then tax the shit out of the wealthy shareholders and executives, if that is what you want to do.
I thought corporations were people too? Get with the program .
Looking at a small time frame is pointless. Canada has balanced its budget very well, and her currency has grown against the dollar, even surpassing it in value for a time.
Taxing corporations at high rates encourages more of them to set up shop in places where they pay no tax rates.
Canada has 100,000 people and million penguins. They export oil and Christmas trees.
It’s a terrible comparison to the US.
Sorry Dallas, but penguins reside in the southern hemisphere (mostly Antarctica), not the northern. Perhaps you meant seals.
that’s what I said, seals !
Dallas laid out the smackdown. And accurately.
Canada’s economy is dependent on our economy. They will never recover until we recover. All Canada is doing is trying to keep it’s corporations alive long enough until America can get it’s shit together.
Are the contributers to this site really this retarded? I keep seeing article after article comparing apples to oranges. If you honestly have no concept of the subject material, either educate yourself, or change subjects.
Wait… It’s an election year… This is article is nothing more than shit throwing… Never mind… Continue your biased idiocy
Things are not going back to the way they were.
Obama should create a “Czar” whose only job is to identify needless regulation, for Obama to eliminate by decree.
Then announce a 3 year amnesty on repatriated corporate profits.
A negative payroll tax on new hires would be to much to ask, I’m sure.
Economics has been called the “Dismal Science.” Even the experts can’t reach agreement and too many of them are wrong. The lurch to the Austrian/Chicago school of kitchen table accounting demonstrates that.
Yea–Romney could well win which will be…… who knows? If he does what he has said, it will drive the economy back into the ditch. If he says FU to his base and actually puts on a business mans balance sheet analysis AND doesn’t push thru tax cuts that simply rape America in order to make more money for himself then…. who knows?
Three reasons Romney could win in ascending order:
1. Voters have short memories and will vote the current guy out if “things aren’t better now than 4 years ago.”
2. Organized overt Voter Suppression by the Pukes and Obama is doing nothing to counter.
3. Pukes have more money.
Same as it ever was.
The idea that cutting corporate taxes will help the economy is a lie. We’ve been cutting corporate taxes for over 30 years. Reagan started it, and David Stockman (his first budget directory) admitted that “supply side economics” is just an excuse to cut taxes on the corporations and high income types.
Since it started in 1981, corporations have gotten richer and richer, and the rest of us just barely holding on, and now the separation between the rich and the poor is banana republic proportions.
Cutting taxes on rich people and corporations just makes richer people and richer corporations. It doesn’t help regular people at all.
Or I should say, the separation between the rich and the rest of us.
“The rest of us are barely holding on” Really? Do you have any idea what “barely holding on” mean? You really need to take a trip… well… anywhere else in the world.
Do rich people just store up money and never spend it? Do rich people just burn the money they make? Who builds these mansions? Who builds these luxury cars? Who builds, flies, and works on these private jets? Who grows, cooks, and serves the food they eat? Do rich people employ people that help them make the money?
Your post shows how much of an entitled moron you are, oblivious to reality. You do realize utopia has never, does not, and will never exist. As long as there are different types of people, there will be different types of incomes. Until mankind is of hive mind, your reality will never ever exist.
I’m talking about standard of living, Derek. The vast majority of us over the past 30 years have not done much better. The rich and the big corporations though have done lots better. You could look it up. The fact is, cutting taxes on the rich just made for richer rich people. “Trickle-down” is a myth. David Stockman admitted that in 1981.
Cutting corporate taxes now, would probably be like locking the barn door, after the horses have all left. At best, it will do almost nothing at all. At worse, it will give those corporations that have remained (or can’t so easily jump ship, to foreign lands), a huge tax break for no reason. And we very probably can be sure that they’ve “talked” (or rather lobbied) the GOP for these tax breaks. So it’s not as if it’s being offered out of the blue, to fix the US economy. It’s likely been planned to increase certain corporations’ bottom line, in a failing economy. Meanwhile, those that went to foreign lands (or planned to soon) won’t be changing their minds for a paltry 15% tax rate. When countries like Switzerland will easily beat that. Cutting taxes of the rich (corporate or whatever) will just be lining their pockets, not some create US jobs.
Is Canada running an annual budget deficit that is the equivalent of the fifty percent of the US expenses for WWII?
No.
Canada was the only G20 country to run multiple consecutive budget surpluses.
Obviously Canada is doing something right. The corporate tax cannot possibly be the only factor.
Ryan, Mittens, Obiden should shut up, because nothing they advocate will improve anything. The only thing they offer is more police state.
It’s because we’re in a planetary, cyclic economic downturn. It doesn’t matter who the President is.
Our problem is the two party political system. When you look at China the biggest advantage they had for American companies was lower wages. Just one example Foxconn which as we know makes electronics for biggies like Apple and has been in the news for suicides, low wages and long working hours. Canada faces the same issues the US does. High wages, high costs of benefits. Its really no any different then the US. We have priced ourselves out of labor in the US. But I do think a lower corporate tax rate would at least put America in line with other Countries who have already reduced it. You have to start somewhere and if your going to be competitive for jobs then you have to look at all areas you are weak or non competitive.
What does the 2 party system have to do with wages? Besides the wage argument is not an argument at all. It’s the trade practices. There’s nothing wrong with American companies setting up shop in China, so long as what these companies are making are being sold to the Chinese. We were all sold a bill of goods in believing that China is this huge untapped market. Only the top 1% were thinking untapped LABOR market; the rest of us were fooled into thinking untapped sales market. In these terms, the wage gap makes sense, but it isn’t supposed to work this way. Our higher wages pay for things like decent schools, sanitation systems, you know – INFRASTRUCTURE. Who the hell wants to be a slum-dog millionaire? I’ll gladly pay higher prices to ensure my neighbors aren’t begging on the streets and shitting in my yard. We have NOT priced ourselves out of the labor market; this is how you pay for a better life for more of your people. Henry Ford got it right; ensure your workers can afford to buy what they’re building. We’ve turned our backs on that concept, now the world is paying for it.
Economics is not understood by anyone.
That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that the USA domestic market is big enough we could stand alone from the rest of the world — in a manner of speaking. We have the resources, the technology, and the market==why not?
I “suspect” all the talk about we can’t compete against the cheaper products made overseas is simply not true==what happens if China is blocked out? The middle men and off shore mfg’or loose their cut.
Pros and Cons to all we do which is why I’m thinking there must be some pros that are ignored or covered up if the USA had been/would be more protective of its home market.
Economics/Trade = the new warfare. Condaleza Rice said it: we need a strong economy for national security. That requires a strong working/middle class. We need to make our own cheap plastic crap right here!
And that strong economy must be inclusive. That is, everyone must be able to participate. You can’t have 24% of the working age populace either on disability or working in fast food restaurants. Ways must be found to keep people on payrolls, even without that bachelors degree in business (or rather, ESPECIALLY without the business degree. Sometimes I think *higher* education is creating unreasonable expectations, but I digress). The populace needs jobs now, as the populace is. Not after they’ve been washed out of the “education” system. If the concern is to obtain a better educated workforce, you do that with the NEXT generation. AND, you do it without burdening that generation with scholastic debt.
Elect Romney and line up to be fucked – unless you’re wealthy and can afford a tax shelter.
NO tax holiday for outsourcing businesses! OBAMA 2012!
Wow… That article is total bullshit. Yet again MORE proof that Uncle Dave has lost it if he even had it…
Canada has recovered ALL of its numeric jobs that were lost in the recession and THEN some. Also, there is a higher labour participation rate in Canada now, compared to 4 years ago. Furthermore, Growth in Canada is FAR more real than in the US where much of it is driven by deficit spending from the government.
And lastly, Canada was NOWHERE NEAR the unemployment rate of the rest of the world OR the US. We had far less to fix as we were not out of control. Not to mention that the U6 # is FAR more representative in the US and shows an unemployment rate of over 15%.
Suck it. Cutting taxes DOES help and as it is, ANYONE that thinks that businesses actually pay corporate taxes is an idiot. WE, the CONSUMER, we are who pays those taxes. Those costs are passed directly on to us by the companies. If you think otherwise, you are either naive or an idiot.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with businesses being scared shitless of the Government would it?
It would be much more informative if they compared the effective corporate tax rates between the US and Canada. GE has shown us that the stated corporate tax rate is effectively only a suggestion instead of the law.
If you double the income of the poor and the rich, you have doubled the gap between the poor and the rich.
Democrats seek to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich.
The founding fathers saw the problems of huge discrepancies in wealth, the corruption it causes in society, from the European monarchies. That’s why they wrote the inheritance tax into the constitution, in order to prevent such problems in America.
But perhaps you know better than the founding fathers…
Good luck educating the simple minds.
Dallas, as you and both know, US dollars are imaginary and the US can print money at will.
And I’m all for a social safety net, btw and that’s something I believe in.
Now, knowing US dollars are imaginary, why hasn’t President Obama established a climate that is beneficial to US-based companies and jobs?
Do I think both Romney and Obama know US dollars are imaginary? Absolutely.
But Obama hasn’t established growth policies and this royally pisses me off. There are several “protectionist” methods that he could have done this. For instance, in the bank bailout, limited bailout funds to US-only banks.
And in the GM bailout, we don’t have full “free-trade” with Mexico on auto exports until 2017. Instead, GM closes US plants and expands their operations in Mexico.
This is beyond belief.
Growth is desired only as to getting Obama reelected. Having people be poorer makes them look to the government for benefits.
For one, investing in American infrastructure is a tried and true growth policy. You might disagree and that cutting taxes for the rich yields better results but growth policy it is.
…So is investing in green energy, retaining manufacturing of the auto industry, tax incentives for keeping jobs in the US and of course continuing the Bush tax cuts – ALL of which is part of growth incentive policies. Do any of these count or are you standing by your point that Obama hasn’t established a growth policy?
I’m all for strong US based protectionism at this point too. However, it is not so easy to start a manufacturing holy war with China, India and Mexico. Do you feel there are protectionist methods that economists and lawmakers failed to see? I’m not so sure. Tariffs is one protectionist tool that a president can employ and has been done. There are pros and cons because the other party can do the same. Sorry, there are no silver bullets.
I would say that a democrat government is more inclined to implement jobs protectionism than a Republican government. With a Romney presidency, even more so – he has the Bain legacy and profit-at-all-costs mindset that spells this out pretty good.
I could not find such a provision in my short google. “The power to tax” including all kinds of taxes–yes.
specifically an inheritance tax?===no.
It is a good idea, just as you say. One it looks like we will reflect on looking from the welfare lines into the gated communities of our new landed aristocracy.
Where in the Constitution do you find this inheritance tax?
Phydeau, your an idiot and so is Dallas. Thank you Pedro and NewformatSux!
What the founding fathers saw was inequality of power, that comes from having a big government with the ability to decide everything. If men were angels, no government would be necessary; if angels were to govern men, no controls on the government would be necessary.
If a government taxes at 100%, the people will starve and die.
If a goverment taxes at zero%, the people will be invaded, conquered, and die.
Obviously–taxes must be some number between zero and 100%.
NO ONE counsels more taxes in a vacuum.
Pukes currently counsel less taxes all the time no matter what the issue is.
CURRENTLY–the Federal Budget is based on a tax schedule that calls for the SUPER RICH to pay an average of 35% on their billions of dollars… but they pay from zero to 13% and some of the richest corps get tax money as a form of welfare.
IE–set the services desired, calcultate the progressive tax rate needed to achieve balance==tax and collect without loophole, fraud, and criminality.
Easy Peasy.
Hong Kong has some of the lowest taxes going and is rated as having the most freedom and it has the fastest growing economy around but you can try Obama’s ideas which unfortunately aren’t all that different from the ones used by Fidel, Mao, and others. They’ve never produced much job growth or good wages in the past but maybe you’ll get lucky this time. Only thing is if he fails you will hurt. At the rate he’s going out deficit will be 20 trillion by the time he leaves office and I have a feeling this will impact our credit rating and the interest rate we pay unless we just fold but if we do that we will have a balanced budget because no matter what we do nobody but a total lune would loan the US used spit.
We rate 9th on the freedom scale and are falling.
d0-ill irrelevantly reading from his talking points says:
9/3/2012 at 7:19 pm
Hong Kong has some of the lowest taxes going and is rated as having the most freedom and it has the fastest growing economy around /// yes, a Communist Controlled City State ripping off the level playing ground of international fair trade with their sweat shop labor (you are free to otherwise starve) and patent thieving manufacturing system. Just the model for the USA to follow. Which 100 sq foot apartment would you like to share with two other familes?
but you can try Obama’s ideas which unfortunately aren’t all that different from the ones used by Fidel, Mao, and others. /// Other than not being in the Republican Party==specifically state how Obama’s ideas aren’t all that different from those genocidal commies. Your failure to respond will be answer enough.
They’ve never produced much job growth or good wages in the past /// Obama has in 3.5 years created as many jobs as GWBushtheRetard did in 8 years.
but maybe you’ll get lucky this time. Only thing is if he fails you will hurt. At the rate he’s going out deficit will be 20 trillion by the time he leaves office and I have a feeling this will impact our credit rating and the interest rate we pay /// that does look like the path we are on. Sadly, everyone else in the world still sees the USA as the best place to invest ….
unless we just fold but if we do that we will have a balanced budget because no matter what we do nobody but a total lune would loan the US used spit. /// That doesn’t make any sense. Did you remember to breathe?
We rate 9th on the freedom scale and are falling. /// Yes–lack of medical services, secure retirement, income disparity and so forth==the very bad policies the Pukes want to make even worse. From somewhat of a free fall, we will enter an accelerated decline under the Pukes.
Say–Do-ill, you can’t have your head any farther up your ass. Why do you want so much company?
Idiot self destructive Republicans: RICH = CRIMINAL.
Vote your own SELF INTEREST. Stop letting the rich steal from you by calling it Freedom (to starve).
Democratic leader announced last year that the plan is to ‘kill Romney’. Expect new negative talking points to be released daily, blast e-mailed to blogs and media supporters. They expect blogs to then follow through with posts of the day;s talking points.
So what will happen if Obama is reelected? Blaming Republicans and George Bush for all the problems. No change and no hope for change. They think that Republicans will change their tune once Obama is reelected. This is from the same people that tell us Republicans are hyper partisan.
Obama goes golfing without having to worry about re-election pressures.
A “conservative Neanderthal” in real life who views me with suspicion sinceI was very pro-Obama in 2008, was keen to mention that Bush stopped golfing after the invasion of Iraq, while President Obama golfs all the time while our economy is in the shitter.
Metaphorically.
and the relevance of this is what?
connect it to anything that makes any sense at all, and I will return +1 Point.
This site was angry with George Bush for giving up golf and calling it a sacrifice while the war was on.
I’d rather Obama be golfing than governing, as it limits the damage he can cause.
..goes golfing without having to worry about re-election pressures…
I think you meant basketball and Church’s Fried Chicken outings but point taken.
Another scenario is that Obama can always do the above because he is, after all, rich. IMHO, he can implement swift and strong executive orders even as Boehner cries a river. A little dictatorship to get the ship going is something we all agree we need.
No, we don’t agree.
This should be a rhetorical question if you’ve studied comparative economics.
Canada is either 10th or 11th by GDP. In either case, there are key differences in cultural diversity, geography, productivity, as well as government policies which would explain how one thing that would work in the U.S. would not work elsewhere or “overnight”.
But generally speaking, if you want to bring the jobs in to your country to help grow your economy and decrease unemployment then by all means entice corporations to set up shop. Dropping the corporate taxes is one good way. In the meantime, the liberals choose to bite the hands that feed them.
If lowering corporate taxes was the answer to economic prosperity, then Ireland should be Europe’s crown jewel. Hasn’t it been demonstrated that most US corporations have figured out how not to pay the going tax rate? Apple parks billions overseas to avoid US taxes as an example. Heck, just allowing small to medium businesses to organize as LLC vs INC eliminates an entire layer of taxation. BTW Somalia has no corporate taxes.
One only has to look to the Euro zone for the effects of high tax rates. The rich most often fork over up-to 75% of their income.
Even that is not enough to support the ever growing not-working class.
With cradle to grave care promised to most Euros who has the motivation to work. Most businesses are punished when they let employees go. Businesses recieve few real incentives to hire when employees become a life long liability.
During the Reagan years, taxes were drastically cut and revenues to the treasury increased several fold.
Canada is a much smaller economy. One thing the Canandian have not suffered is the housing bubble. Most home values did not crash as they have in the states.
“During the Reagan years, taxes were drastically cut and revenues to the treasury increased several fold.”
Let’s compare the figures from 1988 (Reagan’s last full year in office) to 1980 (the year just before he took office). The figures I’m using are all from this 368-page document:
http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
(all these dollar amounts are in millions)
In 1980 the U.S. government collected $244,069 individual plus $64,600 corporate income tax revenue (page 34 of the pdf), for a total of $308,669 from those two sources. In 1988, the receipts were $401,181 individual and $94,508 corporate (also page 34), totalling $495,689. This represents a 61% increase (not adjusted for inflation, which would lower the increase). Do you understand that this is NOT a severalfold increase as you claimed? And if you compare the total of ALL combined revenue rather than just the individual and corporate taxes that I think are much more relevant, the increase in revenue from all sources increased by 76%, still at odds with your claim.
Now let’s look at the debt during the Reagan years. In 1980, the Gross Federal Debt stood at $909,041. By 1988, that same debt figure had ballooned to $2,601,104 (page 143 of the pdf). Bingo! I think we found that severalfold increase you were looking for!
It looks like we borrowed a little bit of that gold during Reagan’s “golden era.”