Thursday, December 30, 2010

Liberals Bait NDP

Let's put this press release in the "new dynamic" folder:

Liberals call on NDP to stand against additional unaffordable Conservative corporate tax breaks


OTTAWA – As Finance Minister Jim Flaherty makes pre-budget overtures to the NDP, Liberal MPs today called on the NDP to demand the cancellation of Conservative corporate tax breaks at a time of deficit in favour of easing the economic pressures on average Canadian families.

“Choosing families over large corporations is a matter of principle that the NDP can’t barter away,” said Liberal Public Works Critic Geoff Regan. “We’re calling on the NDP to take a principled stand against billions in more corporate tax giveaways during a time of deficit – money that would be better directed towards relieving the burden on middle-class families.”

On the first anniversary of Stephen Harper’s decision to shut down Parliament, Liberal MPs decried the Conservative government’s choice to shut out hard-pressed Canadian families by forging ahead with billions in more debt to give Canada’s biggest corporations a tax break on January 1st. Canada’s corporate tax rates are already among the most competitive in the G7 and 25% lower than the rate in the United States.

“One year ago today, the Conservatives shut down Parliament with a promise to ‘recalibrate’ their agenda, but have since delivered nothing to ease the burden on middle-class Canadian families,” said Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison. “Instead, the government has refused to budge from their original plan of adding to their record deficit in order to pay for more corporate tax breaks that we can’t afford right now.”

Liberals have called for measures in the upcoming budget that will alleviate the economic pressures on Canadian families struggling with record personal debt, like support for family care, post-secondary education, and pension reform.

“We’re disappointed that the Conservatives ignored our advice to stop borrowing money to cut taxes for our largest corporations,” said Mr. Regan. “Now it falls to the NDP to take a principled stand in favour of middle-class families by refusing to support the Conservatives’ unaffordable corporate tax cut plan.”


A fascinating release, given recent stances and talk of former foes playing footsie...

17 comments:

Jesse said...

This is exactly why they shouldn't have backed down on opposing the government before. If the Cons won't come to the Libs on F35s and corporate taxes, then they can work with somebody else or go to the polls.

They'd better stick with it this time.

Steve V said...

Seems a bit uncertain, but I would love to know if the F35 purchase is included in this budget?

Tof KW said...

While everyone here may be watching the NDP, I'm looking forward to Team-Harper's responses to this. No doubt they'll defend the tax breaks using the silly Ayn Rand argument. Plenty of simple counter-points the Grits can make for this (see my last posts in the previous thread).

Jesse said...

I believe the budget will include funding for it. Or, we could insist it be rolled back in this budget bill, couldn't we?

Calgary Junkie said...

Flaherty is on the mark with taxes


Flaherty's resolve is getting support in the Montreal business and economic community, where lower corporate taxes are seen as a key to reigniting private investment. ...

Writing in the current issue of the Montreal-based Policy Options magazine, economist and former senior civil servant Tom Kent says Canada has little choice but to fall in line with global trends.

"Lower corporate tax, I would argue, is fact with which we must live, whether we like it or not. Corporate tax as we know it is doomed to disappear because it does not fit with the globalized economy in which we now live."


These corporate tax cuts were part of legislation passed in Oct. 2007. So it is my understanding that Flaherty doesn't need any new enabling legislation in his spring budget.

Also, you guys have to now factor in today's CROP poll, which has us at 20 % vs the Libs at 18 %.

Plus, from Ignatieff's interview with Craig Oliver on Sunday:

" Craig, let me read the thing [budget] first ..."

What is there to read ? Harper won't give an inch on corporate tax cuts, the F35s, learning, or home care. And Ignatieff knows it.
Why is Ignatieff taking a step back down that hill ?

My point: Don't get too far ahead of yourselves, on how your MPs will vote on the budget. Even given this press release.

Steve V said...

That's a nice argument, until you actually compare our corporate tax rates with our trading partners, then you see we are highly competitive. On top of that, wasn't the harmonized HST supposed to be business friendly, make us more competitive? Bottom line, the Liberals have plenty of counter ammunition, they actually have a record of lowering corporate taxes, have supported them in the past, so the "job killer" label will have a hard time sticking. Factor in the alternative expenditures the Libs are offering, and I think the corporate welfare argument won't resonate with the Tim Horton's crowd. I'll take our position every day of the week.

As for the CROP poll, sort of hard to have a host of questions about the hated provincial Liberals, then expect some resounding result for the federal cousins. If CROP were to do a stand alone federal poll I'd be inclined to pay attention, but with the Charest Libs so hated, this result doesn't surprise really.

Nobody is getting ahead of themselves, I've seen to many "showdowns" go awry to be absolute about anything. Your warning is a GIVEN :)

Tof KW said...

What the Grits need are some of the bank execs that came out against the additional corporate tax cuts to speak up again. Frankly deficit reduction is their bigger concern, as accumulated national debt is a bigger economy killer than taxes. Especially when our corporate tax rates are already 25% lower than the US, and lower than our other G7 competitors.

Gayle said...

Wait a minute. Are you saying corporations actually want to pay less money in taxes? Really? Well knock me down with a feather. Who'd a thunk it.

Steve V said...

And guess what Gayle? Did you know defence contractors also favour big ticket defence spending?

I think we can all sift through self interest...

Fred from BC said...

Jesse said...

This is exactly why they shouldn't have backed down on opposing the government before. If the Cons won't come to the Libs on F35s and corporate taxes, then they can work with somebody else or go to the polls.


These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on? Seriously?

rockfish said...

So Harper and his CONs are going to fight an election on a bigger deficit? Really?

Gayle said...

"These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on? Seriously?"

Yes Fred. The election issues are being determined by a bunch of people commenting on blogs.

Let me take you back to a comment you made to me in another place:

Why rely on luck when you've got skill?

On that standard, you need luck my friend - and a lot more than you have had lately.

ha ha ha ha ha

Jerry Prager said...

Ayn Rand was a complete fool, and was such a selfish b-word that she abused the people around her on an ongoing basis, like the little neo-fascist she is: corporations are NOT individuals, in fact they are the anti-thesis of individuals.
The Liberals should campaign against the trend towards Harper fascism, use Mussolini's own quotes about the merger of the state and corporations (at a time when the middle class is being stomped out of existence.) Of course, there is a right wing liberalism that is also fascist, (the John Manley branch) but there is a majority of Canadians who aren't.
That's what the next election is really about Harpo-fascism, versus renewed liberal democracy, which Mussolini, like Harper, also despised.

Tomm said...

Jerry,

I just love your stuff!

"...Ayn Rand was a complete fool,"

"...there is a right wing liberalism that is also fascist, (the John Manley branch)"

"...That's what the next election is really about Harpo-fascism, versus renewed liberal democracy..."

You are going to have to relax a little (if you saw Zoolander you may mistake my suggestion with an attack on the Malaysian Prime Minister, but fight off that little urge).

Just because there are different political parties in Canada doesn't mean that some are fascist and some deomocratic. If you take the time to read some of the Father's of Liberalism, like John Locke, you will see that what they were espousing was essentially our political parties of today. In fact, I think I could make a solid argument that John Locke may well be a CPC supporter if he were alive today. The labels we use today have changed meaning.

As I said, relax. If you love Canada, use your rhetoric to unite Canadian's not cause unecessary divisions.

Fred from BC said...

Gayle said...

"These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on? Seriously?"

Yes Fred. The election issues are being determined by a bunch of people commenting on blogs.

Let me take you back to a comment you made to me in another place:

Why rely on luck when you've got skill?

On that standard, you need luck my friend - and a lot more than you have had lately.

ha ha ha ha ha




Damn. Sorry, Gayle...I didn't realize that you were in this thread before I posted that. Here, let me dumb it down for you:


"These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on? Seriously?"


(..referring, of course, to Jesse's *personal opinion*, as should be obvious to everyone. Well, just about everyone....;)


When you are forced to stretch your credibility to the breaking point just to take a cheap shot at someone, maybe it's time to rethink the wisdom of doing so. Your whole reply just reeks of desperation, honey. But "Happy New Year" anyway, Gayle....and better luck next time, okay?

Fred from BC said...

Gayle said...

"These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on? Seriously?"

Yes Fred. The election issues are being determined by a bunch of people commenting on blogs.



(sigh...)


Here, read it again:


"These are the two issues you would choose to fight an election on?"


That question refers, of course, to the two issues that Jesse personally would choose to fight an election on. Not the Liberals in general. Not the Liberal Party. Not ANYONE else...just Jesse. Just the person I directed the question to. I really can't simplify it any more than that, Gayle...so if you still don't get it, ask someone else to explain it to you, okay?



Let me take you back to a comment you made to me in another place:

Why rely on luck when you've got skill?

On that standard, you need luck my friend - and a lot more than you have had lately.

ha ha ha ha ha



In your dreams. :)

Jesse said...

Hey, I feel so popular! Thanks for all arguing over what someone meant to ask me.

Yes, I think those are two strong issues to fight the election on, though it'd be silly to say "we should only fight on those issues". The Liberals actually have a pretty extensive list of pledges that I've been tracking: http://democraticprogress.blogspot.com/p/liberal-platform.html

These in particular I like because:

1) The F-35 untendered purchase looks more and more ridiculous every day. Evidence is mounting that this goes beyond the refusal to put it out to tender, which is hilariously inconsistent with previous Conservative rhetoric, and with, y'know, getting the best planes for the best price, but that these are not good planes. When rational people in the Pentagon are pushing to cut back on F-35 purchases, how can our government insist with a straight face that we should buy them? Our military's capability, and the massive deficit the Cons have rung up, are both far too important to just laugh off like this.

2) The corporate tax cuts are not something we can afford right now. Our corporate tax rates are very competitive, and we have the previously mentioned massive deficit. Obviously, if you're into supply-side nonsense, fine. Otherwise, how can this possibly be the time to go further into debt? Finally on this point, I think it's rhetorically strong. Canadians are nervous about their economic futures; are they really going to be an easy sell on corporate tax cuts? If we need to cut taxes to go further into debt (which I don't think we should), why not cut the taxes for regular Canadians, instead of relatively wealthy shareholders, and then let Canadian corporations reap the benefits of serving a populace with increased disposable income?