Pages

Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

We are More Genourose Then I thought.

According to a new poll done recently a vast Majority of Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes to combat income inequality. As we know income inequality has risen over the past 30 years in Canada and it is something we must tackle and apparently the country as a whole believes that as well.

The survey showed that 77 per cent of respondents agree that widening income gaps are a big problem for Canada that will have long-term consequences and 71 per cent agreed that income inequality undermines Canadian values.
Liberals and New Democrats are the strongest supporters of paying more taxes to combat inequality, and interesting enough 58% (that a majority!) of Conservatives also believe in paying more taxes to combat inequality. The poll also asked what Canadians thought about higher Corporate taxes. No surprise 73% of Canadians support making Corporations pay the previous 2008 corporate tax rate. That was Ignatieff's plan in the election (ain't so radical was it) In fact a majority of Conservatives agree in making the corporate tax rate go back to the 2008 level. It seems even Harper's Conservatives don't like to the Harper policy.

The Broadbent Institute says the poll shows that the problem of income inequality is not an ideological one and that even the wealthy agree that they should play their part in addressing it.
 Read more Here

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Canada #1

Canada was proclaimed #1 place for business in the world by Forbes. It mentions how Canada has faced the recession very well compared to the U.S and Europe. This of course thanks to the regulations the Liberals put on companies to make sure they would be solid in a worse case scenario. The magazine also mentions the HST which simplifies the tax code and takes taxes off manufacturing. Unfortunately B.C took it back. It didn't just look at taxes on business it looked at
11 areas in 134 countries, including property rights, innovation, taxes, tech, corruption, personal, trade and monetary freedoms, red tape, investor protection and the performance of stocks.
So as you can see the Corporate tax cuts weren't the only reasons Canada became number one. So it seems considering Canada is #1 place for business it only makes sense that we start looking to improve other things in our country.  So continuing to cut Corporate taxes is silly considering there are many other things to do with that money. Our Country has an enormous lead when it comes to taxes compared to are trading partners. So if we increase the Corporate taxes to balance the budget it seems it will have little effect on our rating. As it seems we are already number one. I think balancing the budget can help business in the long run, because cutting Corporate taxes that we can't afford to cut will only mean higher taxes on people or Companies later on which will effect business. In order for Canada to ensure the business community that there taxes don't go up we must cut taxes that we know we can afford. The Liberal party proved this as it cut the Corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to now one of the most competitive in North America and the G8. The Corporate tax rate needs to go back to 18% so we can balance the budget then after we have a surplus like the Liberals we will cut the Corporate taxes. Cutting them now gives business false hope.

Read more here

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The rich didn't steal from anybody

First, a quick check for the defenition of steal:
According to the Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal):

To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away.
According to a legal dictionary (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Steal.aspx):
The taking of something from another without any legal right to do so.
Now that that is out of the way, let us look at how someone gets hired. An employer hires someone because they believe that their business would have an net benefit should this person be hired. There is no other reason, although there are several reasons why a candidate might improve the business. For example, my local hockey arena would not hire a secretary, full time IT professional, or CEO. That is because, despite the valuable services that these members might bring, the cost is too high (remember, probably the only full time staff are the kitchen people and the Zamboni driver).
But some people have more (desirable) skills than others, and most professions have few people who excel at their jobs. This is why certain people make more than others, even if the work seems easier, less, or both. Because of this, certain people make a lot of money for their jobs. For example, a cardiologist can make 250,000 dollars a year or more because the profession requires extensive preparations and extreme skill. Likewise, managers are paid more than workers (managing people is not easy), directors more than managers (imagine managing managers), and presidents and VPs get paid even more than them (for the same reason). And the CEO, the head of it all, is elected by the shareholders (the ultimate in democracy: only those who contribute can vote, and those who contribute more get more clout).
This is, in short, how rich people get money. They get paid for it. (The vast majority of millionaires, approximately 60%, got their money from working hard or starting a business. The common reasons, like stock market, chance events, and inheritance, account for less than 14%. I got these statistics from The Millionaire Next Door, but I may have them wrong as I read it a while back, and will try to re-check them.)
But you think that hard work (remember, it is not always the most qualified candidate who gets chosen; there are many other factors at play, including the will to advance and take that extra
responsibility. I had a friend who was a welder, and he liked that you showed up for work, did your job, and left, and there was no responsibility beyond that.) doesn't deserve such a high salary, and that they could take a pay cut and give the employees more. Remember: the point is to get the job done with the least expenditure of capital. If you are as qualified, as willing, as charismatic, and have the same connections, and are willing to do it for less, I'm sure they will hire you over the expensive guy.
And therein lies one of the reason for such a high salary: the connections. They are not built overnight, and take many, many years and much effort to form and maintain. Not many people would say that decades of their life maneuvering into a high-paying position does not deserve a high salary; or else what would the point be?
I still haven't seen any illegal taking of goods from anybody. On top of that, you gave them the right and power to do so. Not you, silly, but you as a market. Remember: you are the citizen of the market. It is your job, as a consumer, to reward good business practices and to punish bad Your dollar is the ultimate in voting strength. It is democracy on paper. In a fair and open campaign for your dollar, the companies all make decisions about their platform. You, with your dollar, voted for the company that you like best. This was probably based on the product, but can also be based on other reasons (see the attempted boycott of the Alberta Bituminous Sands: it is not avoidance because the oil itself, as a product, is inferior). Even if you still aren't swayed, please don't tax something into oblivion because there are a few bad apples (I will admit it, there are a couple scum-bags out there). Just as you won't ban cars because there are automotive fatalities, don't put punitive taxes on the successful because of the bad apples.

Monday, February 14, 2011

The NDP will Fold

The vote on the budget is coming up in March. We seem to be heading on a collision course as the Conservatives refuse to repeal the tax cuts. None of the other parties want to continue the corporate tax cuts as they are wasteful spending when we have a deficit. I have compiled the ways Conservatives could avoid being brought down. 
  1. The Tories change the budget so that the corporate tax rates do not get any lower. But, this is very unlikely because a few ministers have mentioned that they are not willing to discuss on this issue.
  2. The Conservatives cave in to the Bloc's demands. They are demanding $5 billion in new transfers to Quebec in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax among other things. These demands are completely unreasonable and it does not take a genius to see why Harper will not strike a deal with the Bloc.
  3. The Liberals vote for the budget. This is not likely as the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff have mentioned many times that corporate tax cuts must not be continued.
  4. The NDP folds. This is the most likely scenario as the NDP has much to lose in an election. Even if it is showing off its new "war room," the NDP is just a few seats shy of the record set by Ed Broadbent. In the next general election, the NDP has the potential to lose a significant portion of its seats and it would probably be smart for them to put it off until later.
In summary, the Tories will not change the budget, the Liberals will vote against the budget, the Bloc's demands will not be met and the NDP will make some excuse for why they will be voting to support Harper.
ST. HYACINTHE, Que. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has to make a choice: cash for Quebec or an election, says Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. 
“I am now challenging Stephen Harper to respond to Quebec’s expectations,” a pumped Duceppe said Sunday in a speech closing a party general council meeting. “We are asking for simple fairness, elementary justice.
Read more at the Ottawa Citizen.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Canadians Like Liberals

on their corporate tax stance. A Leger poll showed that 43% of Canadians want companies should pay more taxes and not less. Only 10% of people think that corporate tax rates should be lowered again. Liberals recognize the benefits of reducing corporate income tax, when we have the money to do so. It stimulates the economy, increases investment... But, the Government of Canada is presently running a deficit. We do not have the money to reduce corporate taxes right now. We don't have enough money to give away to large corporations. The Liberals will vote against this budget and rightly so. Corporate taxes should not be cut in our situation.

Saturday, January 08, 2011

Stupid Tax Cuts

The Conservatives want to continue the tax breaks to wealthy corporations in the next budget. This is outright unacceptable. When Canada has a pretty large deficit, one of the first things to cut is giving money to companies that already make billions of dollars in profit each year. These multinationals do not need help getting along. What we should be doing instead is giving out grants to innovators and environmentally-friendly businesses. This promotes new technology and respect for the earth, unlike the Tories' plan, which gives out money based on whether your business is a large corporation or not. If Harper decides to include this waste of money in the budget, the opposition parties should defeat him
But based on discussions with Flaherty in December, Brison said he felt the government was not willing to part with the final round of corporate tax cuts "that we can't afford and we don't need."
 "We want to see the budget first, but we're not that hopeful," he said.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/01/07/politics-liberals-tories-budget.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 31, 2010

Better Warnings

Canada is to beef up the graphic warnings on cigarette boxes. The new labels, like the one found below will cover 75% of packages. It also includes the phone number of a quit smoking hotline. This is a good initiative from the Conservative government to improve the health of our nation. Cigarettes harm the different systems of the human body. Smokers eventually have to go to publicly funded hospitals for their problems. The cost then falls on all of Canada to pay. While the new labels might not be that efficient in encouraging smokers of a long time to quit, I can see this marketing scheme discouraging people from taking a first smoke.

The Liberals and NDP have accused the Tories of backing down in the face of lobbying from the tobacco industry against these labels. They say that this announcement is just "damage control" from when Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq postponed the creation of the new labels and the quit hotline. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are not. There is no proof to support these claims. Therefore, I do not care whatsoever. The plan is laid out and ready to be set in action.

Read more at the Toronto Star.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 25, 2010

The Coca-Cola Metro?

The STM has said it will open bidding on sponsoring metro lines shortly. Some people have said that there is already enough advertising in the metro. However, the STM is always running a deficit year to year and the bill is always paid by taxpayers. With more advertising, will come more money that can be spent on better service, having a cellular network underground and screen with real-time information on the next departure. This is also the area in which a foreign analysis of our metro said we had to work on: putting more advertising in the metros. I would stop short of renaming whole metro lines and stations, but the city's proposal sounds like a good idea. I would also like to see more metro cars and buses with full-body advertising.
Montreal’s métro lines will be not be renamed after corporations or change their colours, and stations will not be plastered with advertising if the Société de transport de Montréal allows the private sector to “sponsor” lines, the STM said Tuesday.
“It will have to be discreet or we won’t do it,” STM executive director Yves Devin told reporters.
Read more at the Montreal Gazette.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Potash Takeover Rejected

Industry Minister Tony Clement has decided to reject the takeover of PotashCorp which mines the famous potash fertilizer in Saskatchewan. For now. BHP, the company wanting to take over PotashCorp has been given thirty days to improve its offer. Then, the minister will review the offer and decide whether to let it happen or not. This is a good preliminary action. Potash is a resource that will be ever more important in the future and keeping it as Canadian as possible will ensure that we don't get the short end of the stick. Besides, it's a source of pride for residents of Saskatchewan. More importantly, the takeover could put jobs and provincial revenue at risk. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the potash business should be renationalized, but a big chunk should remain in the hands of Canada. What I think will happen is that another party will put forward a deal that isn't as bad as BHP's offer. That one will probably be taken. It's a good compromise.
OTTAWA—The federal government is for now turning down the controversial buyout of PotashCorp by an Australian corporate giant.
Industry Minister Tony Clement announced Wednesday that Ottawa is using its power to vet foreign investment to turn thumbs down initially on BHP Billiton Ltd.’s takeover bid.
Read more at the Toronto Star.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 15, 2010

Steps To Go Third World

3 world countries in Africa are considered 3rd world, because of lack for water. Which means everything in our global economy. If you have oil it means nothing unless you have water to get it. You need water for agriculture. You need lakes or shores for fishing and tourism. If you have none of these you country is doomed to go third world. European countries don't have as much water as North America does, but they have a substantial amount, while African countries have none or extremely minimal. Yet the U.S is allowing companies to pollute lakes rivers and ocean by allowing companies to leak toxic into the water. 40% of rivers and 46% of lakes in the U.S are too polluted to swim, fish or allow animals to survive. The U.S might be heading third world if it doesn't stop allowing companies to pollute in any river they want. Many places in the U.S are trying to preserve there rivers lakes for the future generation. We must make sure that we keep our lakes and rivers clean.
(note: even though rivers and lakes are polluted the tap water doesn't come from there as tap water is regulated to be clean and safe in the U.S)

Sunday, September 12, 2010

What's wrong with Fox news?

Now I know many people might say that Fox is a biased right wing news chanel, and don't want it anywhere near Canada, but aren't all news networks biased just even a little? Now, I have seen Fox news and a can agree that it is very biased, but it is the same thing like the Ann Coulter debate when she could not speak because of protestors. If some people at the Ottawa university wanted to hear her than why not? The same with Fox if there is demand then why not? I mean if you want to avoid all bias news than don't watch any news, because there is bound to be one biased correspondent. You could also campare this with the pro life ad at cbs during the Superbowl. Where pro choice groups said they want the ad taken off, but again you can have pro choice ads too. It is a two way street we have Right wing speakers and left wing speakers, Pro life ads and pro choice ads. Why not right wing news? I don't get why some people only want to here left speakers and ads, but when it comes to having pro life ads and right wing speakers there is a double standard.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

How long are they going to wait?

Another oil rig explodes in the Gulf of Mexico. This proves that we need to do something about oil companies. There has to be inspectors going to oil rigs for every company to make sure they are safe, clean and not at any risk of exploding.  I t doesn't matter how the goverment pays for this either make oil campanies pay for them and reward the safest oil comapanies with oil contracts, or the goverment paying for it and increase fines for unsafe oil campanies. It doesn't matter, because if an oil rig is going to blow out every 6 months clearly something must be done. There should be heafty fines for oil campanies that don't follow the rules.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Au revoir Hayward!

Hayward has just been fired. They finally fired him. He was clearly not good enough. When he was asked to come to congress, and was asked questions about the rig all we got was "I was not informed" or "I was not a part of that". First if he was a part of allowing the rig to explode he should be fired automatically. If he didn't know what was going on and was telling the truth then what in the world was he doing. If he does not know what is happening in all the rigs BP owns in the country then there is not just a big problem in BP , and he should be fired for not knowing was is going on in his own business. The new leader of BP is Robert Dudley. Now I hope for everyone that he does better than Mr. Hayward.

Like Hayward, Dudley is a long-time BP employee with more than 30 years in the oil business. A chemical engineer by training, Dudley was put in charge of the day-to-day leadership of the Gulf Coast clean-up operation in June.
The company also plans to nominate him as a non-executive director of Russian oil and gas venture TNK-BP. Executives at TNK-BP said they did not know whether Hayward would replace an existing director, nor did they provide any details about what Hayward's day-to-day involvement in the business would be.

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Nuke the spill?

Some people are saying that the solution to the leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico is to set off a nuclear blast to blow it up. In fact, former Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov is saying, "I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved." Of course, this might cause enormous damage to the environment and maybe even people living on the shores of the Gulf. I'm no expert, but the benefits and disadvantages of a nuclear explosion in the area must be weighed against waiting for the relief well. But, we should not have to be considering these extreme measures. If we just just invested in alternative energy instead of giving presents to the oil companies, our country and world would be a better place. Fossil fuel subsidies are ancient and need to be killed.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON -- His face wracked by age and his voice rasping after decades of chain-smoking coarse tobacco, the former long-time Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
"A nuclear explosion over the leak," he says nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sits in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director. "I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Summits of Fossil Fuels

A new poll shows that the majority of Canadians want the dual summit to talk about ficing the problem of the world's reliance on fossil fuels. No matter what the Conservative Party of Canada hopes for, polls will just keep on coming, saying, "Canadians want the government to protect the environment and fight climate change." 70% of Canadians want to end the subsidies to big oil and big gas, contrary to the position of the government that continues to give tax breaks for the huge corporations. Interestingly, almost 80% want Stephen Harper to use the dual summit to show the world that Canada wants to be a leader in the global climate change fight. Time and time again, Canadians will show the Tories that climate change is not a sideshow and is a major issue that we need to fix.
Two of three Canadians want the Harper government to show leadership at the G8 and G20 summits and announce plans to eliminate subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, according to results of a poll released on Friday.

The survey, commissioned for Climate Action Network, coincides with ongoing G20 discussions about phasing out the incentives as part of a clean energy strategy for the economic recovery.
Read more at the Vancouver Sun.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Stupid Subsidies

Canada subsidises stupidly. Our government still subsidises fossil fuels, the energy of the past and the pollutor of the present. As usual, during the G20 summit, the Conservative government will not show leadership on climate change. Nevertheless, all the leaders of the world's twenty largest economies signed a pact nine eagmonths ago to phase out the subsidies to big oil, big gas and big coal. This is great, but we all know how eager Prime Minister Stephen Harper is to act on climate change. If anything, he promotes increasing our carbon emissions. A responsible government with concerns for the future would end the subsidies immediately. The oil companies already make too big a profit. We do not need to reward them for destroying the environment. What we need to do is penalize them with a carbon tax. It makes the pollutors pay so Canadians get reduced taxes. But since when is Harper for saving the environment? That is why we need a new government.
Ah yes, climate change, the subject Prime Minister Stephen Harper hates. Two weeks ago, while visiting Europe, he called the subject a “sideshow” that wouldn’t get any attention at G8 and G20 summits focused on the economy. European leaders considered his position to be so fossilized that a week ago Monday, at 3 p.m., Mr. Harper had to reverse himself by issuing a revised agenda that, yes, included climate change. Once again – how many times has it been? – Canada’s position on climate change has proved to be an international embarrassment.
Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Oil spill turns 60 days !

60 days ago an oil spill happened. BP said it would be very small spill, and would not have much environmental damage. Capered to the Exon Valdez spill it was suppose to be very small. (Exon Valdez spill 11 million barrels in total). Then the number incresed overr time and the issue became bigger. Now we have the equivalent of an Exon Valdez spill every five days. This spill is now 60 days in. Do we need more of this ? Do we want more of what happens in an oil spill like this? I think that we should stop this from happening by making the oil camapnies pay for inspectors to visit oil drilling areas so that the company who is the safest gets more contracts. We should invest in renewable ressources that will never give us billions of dollars in damages, eviromental effects, animals dying and the loss of economy. The real question is: do you want more of this?

Thursday, May 27, 2010

COI, Clement

CTV has learned that Industry Minister Tony Clement participated in an advert promoting a company to the Chinese. He didn't do it as a Canadian citizen, but rather as health minister of that time. This is unacceptable. Someone who is paid with our tax dollars cannot make an advertisement for a private company. Apparently, the guy who produced the advertisement was also his friend. After, his friend was later named to the Canadian Tourism Commission. The company also received multiple government contracts. This is a triple conflict of interest. First, he participates in a commercial for a private business, second, he names his acquaintance to a government commission, third, he might have given the company their contracts. There should be an immediate investigation into this affair. We don't want this sort of thing to happen again. I embedded the part of the video with Minister Tony Clement below.

Watch the report at CTV and read about it at Liberal.ca.


Repower Ourselves

A good video showing how our dependence on fossil fuels is just going to make us suffer, one way or another. We need to invest and switch to green energy so that we don't need to be slaves to the oil companies. They should not be going around causing environmental disasters. Sure, some people would say disasters are rare, but, properly build and maintained clean energy will cause less disasters than fossil fuels. We need independence from fossil fuels.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Rand Paul "Obama un-American"

If you don't know yet, in Ketucky a Republican primary overwhelmingly was won by Rand Paul. If his name sounds familiar, it is. He is the son of the former Republican presidential nominees candidate, Ron Paul. He said that Obama is un-American, and his reason for this is that Obama is too tough on BP. He said how he thinks "sometimes accidents happen." I think he needs to know how BP was not following  all the regulations, and that they should be held accountable. I don't think BP needs another pillow than the ones it was given by Bush. Rand Paul is trying to bring the coutry to what it was during the Bush White House reign. Where all the corporations are too comfortable with Washington Dc.
"I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill," Paul continued. "I think it's part of this blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault, instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."
Democrat Jack Conway, Paul's opponent in the Kentucky Senate race, released a statement Friday slamming Paul over his comments on BP.
"Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability. He even goes so far as to say that that criticizing corporations when they hurt taxpayers and working families – as in the case of the massive BP oil disaster – is 'un-American,'" Conway said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/21/paul-says-obama-being-too-tough-on-bp/?fbid=JRSptEDlHJy