the Secret to Canada’s financial
success.

Business Tax
Relief Is Crucial to Canada’s Economic Success

As a national, nonpartisan organization, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce works with governments of all political stripes to foster sound
economic and social policies that aim to improve Canada’s international
competitiveness and Canadians’ standard of living.

To preserve our economic future, the Canadian Chamber believes it is
important to return to budget balance over the medium term. Left unchecked,
deficits drive up interest rates and drain national savings. They reduce our
flexi-bility to respond to unexpected circumstances and our capacity to meet
the challenges of an aging population.

The actions we take to eliminate deficits can strengthen the economy or
weaken it. We have to get it right.

The Canadian
Chamber believes the federal go-vernment should rein in spending and improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of government programs to ensure Canadians
receive value for their money. The Canadian Chamber recognizes that across-the-board
slashing of government programs without underlying structural reforms will
generate little in the way of sustained savings. “The federal Program Review of
the mid-1990s resulted in significant short-term savings, but once these
savings were secured and surpluses emerged, the machinery was abandoned. Close
scrutiny of spending must be an ongoing process.”

Increasing taxes on Canadian families and busi-nesses
is the wrong way to eliminate deficits. In a highly integrated global economy,
the tax base is constantly on the move. Skilled workers, businesses, jobs and
capital move easily across national borders, seeking the best economic
opportunities. They are drawn to low-cost, low-tax environments.

The Canadian Chamber finds it particularly troubling that some
politicians are proposing both higher business taxes (by scrapping and even
reversing legislated cuts in the federal general corporate income tax rate) and
more program spending. Tax and spend policies are not the basis for sustainable
economic growth and will do nothing to reduce the deficit. In fact the opposite
is the case—low business taxes promote better economic performance and lead to
more tax revenue of all types in the long-run, not less.

In the last decade, Canada has made steady progress in improving its
business tax competi-tiveness, and it has not gone unnoticed. In January, both
the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times lauded Canada’s
business appeal. “Canada’s international reputation as a destination for
capital and investment is better than it has been for a generation,” said C.D.
Howe Institute’s Vice President of Research Finn Poschmann.2

Canada Has
Witnessed a Remarkable Transformation in the Business Tax Landscape

Over the last decade, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has led the call
for a more competitive business tax system, and both the Liberals and
Conservatives in power have delivered. At the federal level, the corporate
surtax for all corpora-tions and the capital tax have been eliminated; the
small business tax rate has been reduced to 11 per cent and the income eligible
for the lower rate raised to $500,000; and, capital cost allowance rates for a
number of assets have been aligned to better reflect their useful life.

Liberal Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien gradually reduced the federal general tax rate on
corporate income earned by large firms from 28 per cent in 2000 to 21 per cent
in 2004. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s conservative government further

reduced the rate from 21 per cent in 2007 to 16.5 per cent in 2011 with
a further 1.5 percentage point reduction legislated for 2012.

Several
provincial and territorial governments of various political stripes have also
moved to lighten the tax burden on the business sector. The combined
federal-provincial/territorial cor-porate income tax rate has been reduced from
42.6 per cent in 2000 to 27.8 per cent percent in 2011, and further legislated
reductions will bring the combined rate to 25.7 per cent in 2013, one of the
lowest in the Group of Seven (G7) and about equal to the average of member
countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
in 2010.3

While the general corporate income tax rate influences where businesses
locate, the marginal effective tax rate (METR) on capital—which in-cludes the
general corporate income tax rate, capital taxes, sales taxes on capital inputs
as well as deductions or credits associated with purchasing capital
goods—influences capital investment decisions. Further planned tax relief will
reduce the METR in Canada to 18.4 per cent by 2013 (a substantial reduction
from the 36.2 per cent rate that prevailed in 2006) putting Canada at the OECD
average.4

The tax
reductions “were gradual, but deliberate. And the changes took place regardless
of the fact that political parties on both the left and

the right have governed the country over the past two decades. Fundamentally,
political rhetoric and dogma gave way to pragmatism and statesmanship, with
long-term public policy taking precedent (generally) over short-term political
gain.”5

Canadian
Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Perrin Beatty recently told members that,
“All Canadians lose when the political parties squabble over this issue. Our
job is to help secure sustainable economic growth. We have a weak recovery
underway, and we need the help the business tax strategy provides. The issue is
too serious to be left to political game players.”6

Your partisan BS bores me. How about we stick to some basic facts?

1. BOTH parties have been really comfortable with developing new programs and spending more when they've been in power (and try to keep in good graces with the voters). Neither party is innocent.

2. Wars- Yes, we have wars. Bush started Iraq and Afganistan, but Obama didn't make proactive adjustements to the military to ramp them up, get the job done quickly, and turn them over. We are still there- and "helping" out in Libya, 4-5 African nations where we are sending troops, etc. Obama isn't really playing out as a peaceful President either.

3. Now to the basic facts of the story: Do you REALLY wonder why over half of Americans don't think it's their job to help with the deficit? Almost HALF of Americans don't pay federal taxes, so why should they want to actually pay for the deficit? Over 40% of Americans receive some governmental "support"- food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies, etc.- why would they want to pay for the deficit when they are receiving from the government?

4. I am pained (not really amazed) by how many Americans believe that it's the government's job to provide for them without cost. The same people aren't concerned about the costs. Then, when some people start to realize the growing costs of unfunded programs and try to either- stop their growth or cut them, they are described as racists and evil.

I get called mean by my kids all the time for not giving them what they want, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised when society raises an entire class of feeders that they would feel the same way if their programs were to get cut. That being said I am a strong supporter of temporary aid for the unemployed and developing more jobs here. I'm not at all in support of generational welfare, more per baby programs that don't move our country forward. The facts are that our government is spending FAR more than they take in. We are either going to make cuts now in spending, tax more, or we are going to outright default. If that happens, you won't get any benies and we'll have riots. What do you want??

JoeNY - you hit the nail on the head! The problem with this country now is the terrible case of entitlement most of the citizens feel is their due. Why should they get off their bums and work when they can collect money for doing nothing? Let me have another baby so I can get more money! Doesn't help that we have a President who believes Americans can't make decisions for themselves. Let's just keep perpetuating the problem Obama! Yes - I do believe there is a place for short term help when faced with unemployment; however, let's spend money on skills development and job placement vs unending handouts!

Yeah, I can see why you younger folks wouldn't feel nearly as "entitled" to all of the money that you have been forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare since the 1960s with the promise that your retirement years would be taken care of, since quite frankly, you haven't paid your share in yet.

Is it your opinion that since GW "borrowed" more than half of all the money ever borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, in an attempt to mask his administration's budget deficit, (and falsely decrease interest rates and falsely increase stock and housing values too), is it your opinion that now the promised and long paid-into retirements of so many Americans older than yourself should be voided in order to pay-down the debt instead?

Because if so, a whole lot of younger people will still be living at home by the age of 35 or 40 too. I can just see that, 40 year-olds working the counter at fast food joints for minimum wage and still living at home because you smart guys destroyed Social Security and Medicare, and forced as many older workers as possible to keep on working until they drop.

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. Not only that, but without any modification in the Social Security taxable income ceiling, which hasn't changed since 2006 despite nearly 50% real inflation since then, Social Security will be solvent at the present rate of disbursement through 2037, and with a reduction of 15% in benefits from 2037 through 2075 too. If we only indexed the Social Security taxable income ceiling to the real inflation rate, Social Security would be solvent at the present payout rate through the next century, and if we forced all income to pay Social Security tax, instead of just the bottom 80%, we could double benefit rates too.

If you smart guys want more Americans to pay Federal income tax, might I suggest giving all of your employees a big-enough raise to up their tax bracket, and I also suggest that we vote to greatly restrict cheap imports from countries that refuse to abide by our own worker's rights, worker safety, and environmental protection laws, so that those cheap imports do not undercut our own wages and drive down Federal tax collections in the process too.

You want more Americans to pay Federal income tax? If so, there are about 15 million employable Americans who are currently out-of-work. Hire them at lower middle class wages and your supposed problem is solved. And just think: The more that you pay them, the more that they pay in taxes, and the less that you pay too.

It isn't rocket science.

Okay, and since SS benefits are figured on how much a person contributes in a lifetime, I am sure you have some magical formula to help pay for the huge increases in benefits to those people who you want to pay SS on all their income, right? I mean, you do not want or need anyone financing YOUR retirement, do you? And Medicare blew through its initial 10 year budget projection in about 6 years, and then doubled in size about every 4 years for its first 12 years. Medicare/Medicaid has NEVER been solvent since that first budget overrun.

Chilling words from the past come to haunt us;

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

"Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."

Hey Joe, the Dems must have REALLY taken that deficit thing to heart. No balanced budgets from Democrats in Congress for well ove 50 years. But nice try blaming only the GOP.

the GOP isn't really interested in a balanced budget, or paying down the deficit. This is a "starve the beast" mentality. Convince everyone we are broke, convince everyone that raising taxes will kill the economy and do away with anything the little people get.

The sense of "entitlement" is that of the super wealthy, to pay themselves millions of dollars a year, while paying employees minimum wage.

We are 17 trillion in debt give or take a few hundred billion, and everyday your savings takes a hit to hidden or not hidden inflatuation and you somehow don't think we are broke?

Yes, Mike, I do have a formula to decide who gets what when it comes to Social Security disbursements.

Since I have never yet earned more than the Social Security taxable income ceiling, even though I have lived middle-class since 1978, and I have paid Federal income taxes since 1972 (now 40 years ago), I should get 100% of whatever Social Security deems I should get, currently $1200 per month at age 62, $1750/month at age 66, and $2000/month at age 70. which at our current rate of inflation will be worth less than half of that by then!!!

How about those folks whose income is 10 times of what the Social Security taxable income ceiling is? Should they get any more than I do since they are only taxed on 10% of their total income? How about those folks whose income is 100 times what the SS taxable income ceiling is, or 1000 times??? Should those folks even get Social Security and Mediocare, when they can afford to pay cash at the Mayo Clinic and have lots left over???

most Americans want some form of socialism

The only form of socialism that is adding to our debt right now is corporate socialism. Tax subsidies to oil and coal corporations, unfunded giveaways to big pharmaceutical corporations, and of course 2 wars of choice for defense corporations. So when you talk of socialism please don't confuse that DEBT to the debt we take on to pay for poor children to eat.

The American people don't want to pay more taxes. There's a surprise. But it seems that they still want social security, medicare, food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, The FDA to insure their food is safe, FEMA to help rebuild after a natural disaster, a good education for their children, rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure, a strong military and benefits for our veterans, and whatever else. If you're not willing to pay for these programs, then don't expect them to be around very much longer.

Oil Company “Subsidies” Clarified

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/03/oil-company-subsidies-clarified/

posted at 9:25
am on May 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

We’re still
seeing a flood of calls from both sides of the aisle to cut subsidies as part
of an overall strategy to reduce spending in Washington. While there is plenty
available to cut, there has been a steady and disingenuous conflation being
promoted by the White House which seeks to describe certain tax benefits received
by companies in all manner of industries as “subsidies for big oil.” Just
last week Tim Pawlenty was taking
to the stump in an attempt to call out these warped descriptions.

MANCHESTER, N.H.
– Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called a White House proposal to reduced
tax breaks for oil companies “ludicrous” after a gathering of tea party
activists.

“I think we
should have a discussion about all subsidies,” Mr. Pawlenty told Washington
Wire at a forum for 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls. “But the Obama proposal is
ludicrous. I mean the worst thing we could do is raise the cost burden on costs
on energy and oil… What he’s proposing is a tax increase on energy at a time
when the gas is $4 a gallon. It’s preposterous.”

For those
seeking to sort out the definitions of the terms being used, the American
Petroleum Institute has published
a new paper doing just that.

Contrary to what
some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry
currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the
US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and
to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in
policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with
“subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending.

Here are a few
of the items which are being incorrectly identified as “subsidies” inside the
beltway:

Intangible
Drilling Costs
– Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover
their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens
the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found
in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration
costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic
Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to
9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the
United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in
the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is
limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage
Depletion
– The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows
taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a
percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available
to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.)
This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the
US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

There are more,
so download the paper and read them for yourself. Then, when you hear your
congressman talking about all of the “subsidies” for big oil, you can set them
straight based on the facts.

To be clear, the
federal government does engage in the handing out of a lot of actual subsidies,
including those for ethanol and a variety of wasteful programs which are
essentially failures on their own merit without feeding off the teat of Uncle
Sam. And we should certainly be looking at those areas as way to address cost
cutting. But trying to depict tax credits used by the energy industry – in the
same fashion as every other industry – as some sort of special love festival
for Big Oil is dishonest.

Honest Jo,

You just wasted your time. Your writing effort requires the ability to gather facts and analyze them in order to come to a cogent conclusion. Liberals cannot do this. All they know, is easy to spout bumper stickers like "No more subsidies for Big Oil!"

Mike you really added a lot to this conversation, Not. Nice third grade view.

Why should I think this country would be any different now than when it was founded. A bunch of rich aristocratic @!$%#heads that did not wanna pay their taxes.

The deficit is the problem and if we don't pull together to solve this problem, that means increasing taxes and controlling expenses, it will be the making of the down fall of the U.S. A strong U.S. is an out of debt U.S. but in this atmosphere of greed, and not sharing responsibility for the debt we are headed into a serious crash. Let's make America a strong country by everyone paying their share.

The American people wanted war

I beg to differ. We were coned into them by the political / industrial complex . The boys wanted to play with their new toys and find out if they work. Also even more important to them was to fatten their bottom line . Also in our national debt is congresses waste full spending on stupid things . Along with subsidise to corporations that don't need them . Also wasted money to the U.N. , The I.M.F. along with the world bank.

seriously? Where did you live in 2002-2003?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/7990/public-support-iraq-invasion-inches-upward.aspx

shows support for an invasion of Iraq slightly higher than in recent weeks, at 64%

I proudly am part of the 36%, you?

No revenues are down with so many unemployed. 5 trillion in deficit spending in 3 years, for a faild stimulus amd the healthcare monstrosity. If you took all of the wealth of the 1% it would only operate the gov. for 2 days. then whos money would you get. As Thatcher said Socialism only works til you spend everyones money.

We the,

The war in Afganistan was supposed to be about Osama. Turns out that was not true. The other was due to some, daddy please be proud of me issues, the POTUS was having. I doubt that given authentic info the people would have been so gung ho about either one.

The balanced budget ammendment would have destroyed the American economy over the last 3-4 years. Times of crisis require deficit spending, sorry you don't understand that reality. And the crash of republican deregulation and economic policies that led to 700,000 people a month losing their jobs was a crisis. The wars of choice, NOT. So until we get rid of republican tax cut and spend policies we can never have a balanced budget. Unlike democrat policies of tax and spend that led to a balanced budget.

The balanced budget ammendment would have destroyed the American economy over the last 3-4 years. Times of crisis require deficit spending, sorry you don't understand that reality.

Liberal pap...that doesn't become true through repetition. Get it through your little heads....Keynes was an idiot. Government spending is a drain on the economy. Government employees count as a negative when we are counting employment numbers.

To WE THE....please name me which Democratic Congress had a balanced budget in the last 50 years. Bet you can't!

A balanced budget leaves no room for any maneuvering (unless you have rainy day fund accounts)

Under a balanced budget, we would now be in a severe depression. No bailout for a bank, auto co or real estate mess !!!

get it through your little head, voting republican is casting a vote against your self interest, and that of the nation!!!!

.please name me which Democratic Congress had a balanced budget in the last 50 years. Bet you can't!

Please name me a republican president that balanced a budget in the last 50 years, cause I can name a democratic one!

And if you give his congress credit for it, then this congress gets credit for the deficit they rung up...and Obama get none.

So until we get rid of republican tax cut and spend policies we can never have a balanced budget.

Sounds good lets wipe out the mortgage deductions, child deductions, 401k deductions, and charity deductions. We make 91K last year and paid about 6.13% federal taxes.

If we could cut defense, SS and Medicare in half then I would agree with you, but we can't or won't and so it has to paid for.

Wars do cost money.

Why can't we cut those? Or "means test" SS and Medicare? Oh, wait, I forgot about the so-called affordable health care act--the cost of which is already skyrocketing before full implementation. Time for the government to detox, but no one has enough of a pair to do it.

We should means-test it, absolutely.

But I would certainly not revoke providing health care to the poor, at least not even consider it, until we revoke the tax exclusion for health benefits for all. People don't realize that the federal government, through its exclusion of health care benefits from taxable income, subsidizes the private health care model by about 500b a year, far more than the amount spent providing health care to those who can't afford it.

the dems stole a half trillion from medicaid to get healthcare paseed and double counted that money.

That's false Tyco.

www.factcheck.org/2010/10/health-care-spin-again/

So I guess kathleen sebilius was lying in front of congress.

Whatever the reason you believed that to be true, now you know it isn't.

half trillion from medicaid

So you don't support cuts in government spending?

Or you don't like giving democrats credit for cuts in spending?

Nice hypocrisy either way...

No cut in spending was made just moved money into another bucket with a hole in it also. That goes for both parties.

Mark

Here is what your link states about the 500 Billion in cuts for Medicare.

This might be the most common line of attack of them all. We’ve seen many versions of the claim that the health care bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion. That’s actually a reduction in the future growth of spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current budget, as we’ve pointed out.

Now if you take 500 Billion out over 10 years or 1 year it is still taking 500 Billion out of Medicare.

It cuts spending on medicare over 10 years. What do you want the govt. to cut? You yell cut spending now-- But what you mean is Cut spending from anything that i will not have to use. idiots

Maybe those dems. could pass a budget. Lower corp. tax rate from33%. No you do not punish me for your out of control spending. No new taxes.

The "few" of us that have jobs amounts to about 90% of those of working age and status. Poor choice of words.

That being said, relative to our spending on defense, SS, Medicare, our income taxes are pretty low. If we truly want lower taxes, we need to cut spending first, not afterwards.

Mark -

Actually, the few of us that have jobs amount to about 65% of those working age. Before 2008 it was about 75%.

Brian, I'm using the unemployment rate as my basis, though your standard is also legitimate.

In any case, it's not the "few" as this schmuck claims.

The key words came after the part about jobs---he said "and pay taxes". I believe everyone would agree with the IRS' own numbers which conclude that about 1/2 of Americans pay NO income tax. Argue all you want about how many are employed, unemployed, or underemployed. The stat that really matters is how many actually pay into the system.

Mark, when you also take into account the 47% of folks who pay no taxes, that puts the employed taxpayer in the distinct minority. Before you start name calling (the typical lib response) you should think a little more. Try it. You may like it.

It is not just the people that make very little that pays no or close to it. We made 91K last year and paid 6.13% income tax. I say raise everyone taxes by 10-15%. If they don't make enough they should just get a better job.

5 trillion in deficit spending in 3 years absolutely ridiculous.. Repeal healthcare would be a great start, as the pricetag doubled this year.

Trico, "price tag doubled" - also false.

How about some spending cuts? no one ever talks about that.

wrong. only liberals are unwilling to talk about spending cuts. they prefer to keep dumping water into a leaky pale. but then you can't attempt to buy votes by reducing spending.

Come back to reality pissed. 50% of people don't pay taxes and don't tell me it's the top 50%..

Even if we taxed the 50% who don't pay taxes, it doesn't raise much money. The reason they don't pay taxes is that they don't make much money. Collecting $2k from 50m people raises 100b, barely a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, let's make sure the guy making $20,000 and barely scraping by pays his "fair share" of taxes, and let's make sure the guy making $500,000 pays less. Make poor people poorer! That will fix everything.

taxing the rich more won't fix our deficit as it's too large. our government wastes billions monthly. Obama has done nothing to fix the leaks. He just keeps throwing tax payer money at the problem like a stubborn fool.

lololololo "taxing the rich more won't fix our deficit as it's too large" It worked during the depression and also worked during the Clinton Administration so why wont it work again? If you say something over and over again that does not make it true. lololololol

The reason that 50% of the population do not pay taxes is that they do not make enough money to pay. There is also large companies that has had the largest profits in history also not paying taxes but getting rebates from our govt but nothing was said about them.

President Obama is not perfect but he is doing a better Job then the GOP did when they were in the Whitehouse. Dow is over 13000 , Positive Job Growth for 2 yrs straight, GM is #1. Millions of Jobs Created and saved under his administration. The GOP did nothing except try to stop President Obama from doing anything! The debt was there under Bush but no one said anything about that or his spending spree of the CLinton Surplus.

The poor should pay something. They leach off the system.

There is more money being lost off the corporate leaches but again no one is complaining about that. Apple is holding 60+ billion overseas to avoid paying taxes on that , but thats okay. lolololololololol

If liberal policies are so good then why are you liberal fools unwilling to pay for them?

Tom8896- Then start paying for them- you want them to have it you pay.

very respectful. if you were a liberal you'd quit all three and live on the government because it's easier.