The Proposed Budget....

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Senior

You're actually a little mixed up in your analysis of the GST cut. It's actually in relative terms more beneficial to low income earners. The reason is that rich people spend a much lower ratio of their income on goods and services than poor people do. I'm not poor but basically live cheque to cheque and spend a large portion of every cheque on goods and services. Compare that to a rich person who saves 50% or more of their earnings in investments and such. While they may spend more on GST in total they spend much less relative to their income. This will apply to nearly any sales or flat tax scheme.

you're right but most people on here are economic and financial illiterates so youre wasting your time.

as for the last paragraph you're entirely wrong, empirical evidence shows the absolute opposite. Especially gordo's tax cuts and thats excluding the gains from resource exploration that the NDP twits like portray as gordo's redemption.

tax cuts typically do generate more revenue but it takes a few years for the effects to be fully felt, because tax cuts are predominately used to encourage investment, which has more long term effects that are not felt immediately. Also the type of tax cut is important, a g.s.t tax cut will have far more immediate effect but the benefits wont be as broad based or siginificant then an equal reduction in capital gains, corporate or income taxes. In fact after the 2001 tax cuts in the u.s governemtn's tax revenues have increased significantly(as well as the proportion of the tax bill paid by the rich) its just that their spending increases are insane. Same goes for regan and thatcher's tax cuts in the 80's, the federal liberal tax cuts in the late ninties, all of the scandinavian countries in the early ninities, the u.s in the 60's and the new eastern european members of the E.U in the last 3 years.

you could build a model with 5 year governmental tax revenue figures for any of the above situations and even with isolating all other variables you will prove yourself wrong. you been reading too many studies by the centre for policy alternatives, and not enuff economic history, econometrics and tax theory. Think tanks of all stripes like to frame and distort the information and lie to people in order to serve their own political purpose.

[fable]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

you're right but most people on here are economic and financial illiterates so youre wasting your time.

as for the last paragraph you're entirely wrong, empirical evidence shows the absolute opposite. Especially gordo's tax cuts and thats excluding the gains from resource exploration that the NDP twits like portray as gordo's redemption.

tax cuts typically do generate more revenue but it takes a few years for the effects to be fully felt, because tax cuts are predominately used to encourage investment, which has more long term effects that are not felt immediately. Also the type of tax cut is important, a g.s.t tax cut will have far more immediate effect but the benefits wont be as broad based or siginificant then an equal reduction in capital gains, corporate or income taxes. In fact after the 2001 tax cuts in the u.s governemtn's tax revenues have increased significantly(as well as the proportion of the tax bill paid by the rich) its just that their spending increases are insane. Same goes for regan and thatcher's tax cuts in the 80's, the federal liberal tax cuts in the late ninties, all of the scandinavian countries in the early ninities, the u.s in the 60's and the new eastern european members of the E.U in the last 3 years.

you could build a model with 5 year governmental tax revenue figures for any of the above situations and even with isolating all other variables you will prove yourself wrong. you been reading too many studies by the centre for policy alternatives, and not enuff economic history, econometrics and tax theory. Think tanks of all stripes like to frame and distort the information and lie to people in order to serve their own political purpose.

Translation: You dont like to see your precious empirical data actaully have some context applied to it?

[Senior]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

you're right but most people on here are economic and financial illiterates so youre wasting your time.

as for the last paragraph you're entirely wrong, empirical evidence shows the absolute opposite. Especially gordo's tax cuts and thats excluding the gains from resource exploration that the NDP twits like portray as gordo's redemption.

tax cuts typically do generate more revenue but it takes a few years for the effects to be fully felt, because tax cuts are predominately used to encourage investment, which has more long term effects that are not felt immediately. Also the type of tax cut is important, a g.s.t tax cut will have far more immediate effect but the benefits wont be as broad based or siginificant then an equal reduction in capital gains, corporate or income taxes. In fact after the 2001 tax cuts in the u.s governemtn's tax revenues have increased significantly(as well as the proportion of the tax bill paid by the rich) its just that their spending increases are insane. Same goes for regan and thatcher's tax cuts in the 80's, the federal liberal tax cuts in the late ninties, all of the scandinavian countries in the early ninities, the u.s in the 60's and the new eastern european members of the E.U in the last 3 years.

you could build a model with 5 year governmental tax revenue figures for any of the above situations and even with isolating all other variables you will prove yourself wrong. you been reading too many studies by the centre for policy alternatives, and not enuff economic history, econometrics and tax theory. Think tanks of all stripes like to frame and distort the information and lie to people in order to serve their own political purpose.

Keep in mind that you have just as much of an ideological lens to see things through as I do. And if this empirical data is so readily available lets see a link. The fact is that Gordo is no genius when it comes to the economy. He slashed spending to match cuts to taxes all the while global commodity prices have gone through the roof causing an economic boom for BC's natural resource based industries. When prices fall and interest in our province dries up again I'm sure we'll all enjoy the recession.

[SEAN!]

yoiu both can do your own analysis, doubt you even know how to use excel or lotus though.
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/
http://www.statscan.ca/
you cant get into some of the more detailed statistics because they cost money but ill ahve you note that the economic growth and the tax reveneue attributed to it is far more broadbased then you beleive. in fact the construction, manufacturing, technology, healthcare, real estate, finance and insurance industries (within the real economy, not the stock market) have had runs that parrallel or exceed those in the natural resource based industries.

he didnt slash spending to match revenues, he did it because the government was paying to much for marginal benefits. he even said he was going to do it long before he even got elected.

i dont even really have an ideological lense when it comes to economics or finance. i just measure the implicit and expilicit costs versus benefits and take a look at the historical data for similar policies and situations to predict the future outcome. its only my expereince as a number cruncher, my ba in economics& sociology, and my current enrolment in the graduatel level chartered financial analyst program that has imparted a certain knowledge which makes me sympathetic to certain political policies. as for political parties and ideologies in general, i dont really listen to them because ideology and policital beleifs are almost entirely emotional in nature. Just take at fable's unyeilding rants, thats not reason or critical thinking its just emotional mania. I only really care about politics when it makes people irrational or short sighted idiots and it ends up fucking people over.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by fable

Translation: You dont like to see your precious empirical data actaully have some context applied to it?

yeah statistical and historical context. not someone's bullshit emotional melodramatic context

[fable]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

yeah statistical and historical context. not someone's bullshit emotional melodramatic context

From this shred of priceless “empirical” data I have derived that your consistent enslavement to the world of numbers and statistics outside of the tangible poverty, corruption and hardship born of the capitalist orgy has proven a barrier to entry into the world of living breathing human beings so much so that when you first heard tragedy of the commons you laughed, because you thought it had to do with the plight of commoners. Perhaps a vacation from Okuns law, and some time spent with the millions of people who’s lives are a nightmare, instead of living in synthetic economic models might cure your lack of adaptive expectations, and perhaps you might just wake up from the nightmare of dollars and cents and find the real bliss point.

Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.
"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?"
"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."