Doug Ford - Build in greenbelt

[backmarkerducati]

Forum Sponsor

Put away the Laffer curve stuff, it's a theory that simply doesn't apply here. Laffer's main premise is that as tax increases, incentive to produce and output decreases. I'm guessing you read some scholarly article that shows the breaking points for taxation and that that has you confused about the theory.

You are right the economy is chugging along nicely, thanks in part to the fact it never receded under the last regime, the US economic surge, and in part because commodity prices are back in the green.

That doesn't mean government is healthy, or that government finances are under control. In good times we ought to have a bountiful surplus. Imaging if you were a big company and you were loosing money and spending like a drunken sailor in a robust economy -- what would your stakeholders do at the next AGM vote?

The Laffer Curve does matter. While the original concept was part of the theory that cutting taxes could actually increase revenue (used for trickledown/supplyside economics) it has been tried enough that numbers have been put to the curve in more places than the two end points. What we see on the curve (not theory any more) is ~35% represents maximum economic growth rate and 70% is maximum revenue. We are currently below 35% any additional cut reduces growth rates.

As for the US, remember they have three times (and climbing) the per capita deficit and four times the federal debt per capita compared to Canada (Trump vs Trudeau). If deficits matter Trudeau (and Canada) is a superstar compared to Trump and the US.

 

[Type17]

Put away the Laffer curve stuff, it's a theory that simply doesn't apply here. Laffer's main premise is that as tax increases, incentive to produce and output decreases. I'm guessing you read some scholarly article that shows the breaking points for taxation and that that has you confused about the theory.

Well, yes and no. The Laffer curve is just a relationship between government revenue and taxation. The implication is that there is some non-zero level of taxation that maximizes Government Revenues which i think is what backmarkerducati was referring to. It's a concept that now, almost 50 years on, seems commonsensical; above the optimal tax level you choke production (so you don't maximize gov't revenue) and below the optimal level you're leaving money on the table (so you don't maximize gov't revenue). It's certainly not an indictment of taxation and it actually suggests increasing taxes if the tax level is below the optimum.

 

[Mad Mike]

Well, yes and no. The Laffer curve is just a relationship between government revenue and taxation. The implication is that there is some non-zero level of taxation that maximizes Government Revenues which i think is what backmarkerducati was referring to. It's a concept that now, almost 50 years on, seems commonsensical; above the optimal tax level you choke production (so you don't maximize gov't revenue) and below the optimal level you're leaving money on the table (so you don't maximize gov't revenue). It's certainly not an indictment of taxation and it actually suggests increasing taxes if the tax level is below the optimum.

Wait -- 50 years ago? I'm guessing 40!

Anyway, it's fodder for debate not much more. If we had one tax, one workforce and one 100% efficient government AND everyone agreed to pay 100% of their taxes you might be able to calculate T, the optimal tax rate. Our economies are far too complex making it impossible to compute optimal tax rates.

Laffer also singly focused on the relationship between tax and incentives to work -- it doesn't consider whether maximizing gov't revenues is the best approach fro managing a gov't or economy.

There is some empirical evidence that reducing tax rates increases willingness produce and invest -- it's unfolding 40 miles south of us as we speak.

 

[Type17]

Wait -- 50 years ago? I'm guessing 40!

You're probably right. Before my time in any case...

Anyway, it's fodder for debate not much more. If we had one tax, one workforce and one 100% efficient government AND everyone agreed to pay 100% of their taxes you might be able to calculate T, the optimal tax rate. Our economies are far too complex making it impossible to compute optimal tax rates.

Laffer also singly focused on the relationship between tax and incentives to work -- it doesn't consider whether maximizing gov't revenues is the best approach fro managing a gov't or economy.

There is some empirical evidence that reducing tax rates increases willingness produce and invest -- it's unfolding 40 miles south of us as we speak.

Yeah it's hard to find some optimal T... I think of these things more as directional tools and something to be aware of rather than something that will spit out a number that should become policy... In any case, I know too little about that side of economics to comment on it too much.

As for the effects of the tax reform down south, we'll see in due time I guess... it's been a boon to the wealthy as I understand, we'll see if it indeed trickles down to the blue collared.

 

[Mad Mike]

The Laffer Curve does matter. While the original concept was part of the theory that cutting taxes could actually increase revenue (used for trickledown/supplyside economics) it has been tried enough that numbers have been put to the curve in more places than the two end points. What we see on the curve (not theory any more) is ~35% represents maximum economic growth rate and 70% is maximum revenue. We are currently below 35% any additional cut reduces growth rates.

As for the US, remember they have three times (and climbing) the per capita deficit and four times the federal debt per capita compared to Canada (Trump vs Trudeau). If deficits matter Trudeau (and Canada) is a superstar compared to Trump and the US.

No sir, you are incorrect.

You are right that reducing taxes may not create enough growth in revenue to replace the taxes cut. But who cares? The goal isn't for the gov't to maximize it's income. If reducing taxes generates production and economic growth that reduces the need for gov't spending -- we win!

Also, nobody has ever applied Laffer's theory anywhere in any defensible format. You can find a few scholarly articles however they are meaningless as they oversimplify the economy and how taxes are collected. In Laffer's world there is one tax rate and one worker who always pays taxes -- there are no investment choices. Servers pay tax on their tips, carpenters record their cash sales, business owners never record paying for their kids hockey as 'sponsorships', and dentists never visit Cabo with their family for a 1 week all-inclusive dental floss convention using company money.

Finally, you'll need to explain how maximizing gov't revenues is best for the economy and not just best for the government.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Mad Mike, as for growth, INDUSTRIAL growth 4.8% for Canada and 1.8% for the US (that is what I was talking about, this is NOT GDP growth BTW, I assume you maybe missed that when you read my other post...) and there are reasons--in the context of good paying jobs--to look at Industrial growth and not GDP. Unless all we want is McJobs, consumer spending, etc.

BUT....

For Real GDP growth, Canada in 2017 was 3% and the US was 2.2% (Source CIA, yes that CIA...). OECD actually has just about the same numbers.

But again! The US federal gov is running three times the per capita deficit of Canada (fed). both USD.... That kind of crazy spending also pads their GDP numbers.



Maximizing revenues is not good for the economy, I don't think anyone said that, that is why maximum growth and maximum revenue do not intersect... really basic economics there...

 

[Chuck Johnston]

All in all, I'm relatively pleased with the way things have developed in recent years and I'd be fine with more of the same, but I can understand how others would want something else.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

Ford will probably ride the usual ‘tax cuts’ and ‘finding efficiencies’ PC trope all the way to Queen’s Park but TBH I kinda feel bad Ford voters because in the end they’re gonna feel dumb for voting for him. He’s a tool and he’s clumsily dishonest. So was his brother but at least Rob had charisma.


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

 

[caboose56]

Meanwhile the PC candidate chosen for my riding is a certifiable RWN.

I’ll be declining my ballot in this election.

 

[J_F]

they might as well drop the P from the party name
choosing Ford as leader is all I need to see
to indicate that they are regressive

 

[Mad Mike]

Meanwhile the PC candidate chosen for my riding is a certifiable RWN.

I’ll be declining my ballot in this election.

Who is your candidate?

 

[caboose56]

Who is your candidate?

Andrew Lawton.

He’s an ex-radio talk show host with a long history of online and on-air buffoonery

Terrible choice.

 

[Mad Mike]

Andrew Lawton.

He’s an ex-radio talk show host with a long history of online and on-air buffoonery

Terrible choice.

Ouch. From what I've read about Lawton, he's one of the few that might make me skip the vote.

 

[caboose56]

Ouch. From what I've read about Lawton, he's one of the few that might make me skip the vote.

I'd like to see Wynne get the boot.. if given a reasonable candidate in my riding I think I could have overlooked not being a fan of Ford.

However, given this choice I simply can not vote PC.

 

[Baggsy]

So much prejudice against mental illness, shame on you!
He needs to step up and openly discuss his demons if he wants a chance.

I went through the process this year (well last year) of helping to pick a candidate. She's an M.D. who wants to work on the health care system.

b.t.w. how did the debate go? I couldn't watch it, since I had to drive one of my kids to math tutoring (the current curriculum is nuts, so most schools don't completely follow it, but ours does).

 

[bigpoppa]

I dont know but after watching the highlights i have a sudden urge to rep orange

 

[RockerGuy]

I dont know but after watching the highlights i have a sudden urge to rep orange

NDP is worse than liberals! More left leaning, more big government, more identity politics!

 

[RockerGuy]

So much prejudice against mental illness, shame on you!
He needs to step up and openly discuss his demons if he wants a chance.

I went through the process this year (well last year) of helping to pick a candidate. She's an M.D. who wants to work on the health care system.

b.t.w. how did the debate go? I couldn't watch it, since I had to drive one of my kids to math tutoring (the current curriculum is nuts, so most schools don't completely follow it, but ours does).

They teaching your kid sex ed instead of math

 

[LePhillou]

They teaching your kid sex ed instead of math

If you dont learn sex ed, youll need to know math real well to make the ends meet for that surprise baby lol

 

[fastar1]

NDP is worse than liberals! More left leaning, more big government, more identity politics!

Doug just delivered on the threat everyone's been warning about: He's going to spend more money for less transit in the GTA: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...billion-in-toronto-subway-funding-as-campaign

His old pal Mammoliti from City Hall has already begun to stall existing projects in anticipation of the wasteful plan the PCs want to foist on us: https://www.toronto.com/news-story/...iti-motion-delays-finch-west-lrt-construction

This is just like they did with the LRT project in Scarborough, now 4 years delayed and counting, more than twice the cost (that's billions wasted), and for worse service. The goal of his transit plan is to improve convenience for drivers, yet cars are the biggest obstacle to growth in urban areas.

This is what ignorance delivers when it's applied to a $150 billion yearly budget. If you don't want big government waste, don't vote PC.

 

[RockerGuy]

Doug just delivered on the threat everyone's been warning about: He's going to spend more money for less transit in the GTA: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...billion-in-toronto-subway-funding-as-campaign

His old pal Mammoliti from City Hall has already begun to stall existing projects in anticipation of the wasteful plan the PCs want to foist on us: https://www.toronto.com/news-story/...iti-motion-delays-finch-west-lrt-construction

This is just like they did with the LRT project in Scarborough, now 4 years delayed and counting, more than twice the cost (that's billions wasted), and for worse service. The goal of his transit plan is to improve convenience for drivers, yet cars are the biggest obstacle to growth in urban areas.

This is what ignorance delivers when it's applied to a $150 billion yearly budget. If you don't want big government waste, don't vote PC.

He's building subways.. Highly efficient. Compare that to streetcars, those are archaic.

Forum Sponsor