I don't think there will be three consecutive years of 250 billion/year. I expect there to be a significant taper in each year for a couple years and that seems entirely fine. Basically every country in the world seems to be doing this basic path. Like there are debates around the edges (republicans want 1 trillion in the latest bill, dems want 3, maybe they settle on 1.5) but whatever.

This is mostly irrelevant. Take CERB. There were estimates of fraud levels for these, and the CRA seemed to believe the vast majority of errant CERB cases would be discovered at tax time, and the proportion that were genuinely a) fraudulent and b) not discoverable was going to be pretty damned small. So frustrating, sure, but not really a factor in the large question of whether the Canadian government should be or shouldn't be doing massive economic stimulus. Besides, almost every program is unfair in some ways. I kept my job and my wife is a stay at home mom so we got almost nothing (just the increase to CCB) out of it so sucks for us.....except I kept my job, so I can't really complain.

Oh may announce only 100 to 150 billion deficits next year and 50 billion the year after but reality is they will be 300-500 billion.

I think if he decides he is going to spend his way out of Covid he should call an election and let the people decide if thats the path they want to go

Also yeah they will catch the fraudsters that were working and collecting CERB or collecting EI and CERB. Those are not the folks im talking about.
I am talking about folks that asked to be laid off to collect CERB or quit. Also so many businesses needed the help but Id bet 1/2 never needed it but took it as some of it was free. THe only program not used was LEEF i do believe

The problem is with high levels of government spending, not the deficit per se. It is immoral for the state to take from those who create and redistribute that wealth to those who do not, and government spending is always redistributive. Now advocates of state action may tell you that the government will spend that money on your behalf, but even when that is true (and often it is not), there is a massive loss in utility, because the politician or bureaucrat who spends that money is not aware of the individual's value scale on whose behalf he is spending that money, even if they did care, which is a doubtful proposition in the first place. To say nothing of the fact that most of the money goes to support the bureaucracy itself and not to actually help anyone. There is far more utility gained when an individual spends their money on themselves, because they are uniquely aware of what their most highly valued ends are and how they may go about satisfying those ends. That is why the best approach is to not take people's money in the first place. And it is curious that social democrats who austensibly care so much about the poor and the working class and the middle class at the same time advocate vociferously for confiscatory tax rates on these same individuals. Why not simply exempt the first $100,000 of income from taxation? Why have a sales tax at all, or sin taxes, which disproportionately punish the poor and the working class while not serving at all to dissuade sin, which has been with us since time immemorial and certainly does not seem to be going anywhere any time fast?

You speak as if the poor as no money because of taxes ?
Being poor means having no income , and you can’t pay taxes if you have no income .


I just don’t see how hard it is to see that when you reduce taxes it help about only the top middle class and higher + corporations because they are the one carrying the load of taxes because they are the ones having income ...shrug

FWIW, if I was poor or in lowest % of the middle class , I rather be here than in the US without question and that kind like the proof of lowering taxes doesn’t necessarily means better when you compare the lowest economic class in Canada with the states for example .

The reason why I want to reduce taxes isn't because it would help the poor, although it would. The reason I want to reduce or eliminate taxes is because it is wrong to threaten people with violence in order to get their money. Surely you will concede that point? After all, do we not universally condemn the crackhead who robs the 7/11? And a basic moral principle is universality, that if A condemns B for doing a certain thing, then A must also condemn C or D or any other individual or organization who does that thing. We can't have one set of standards for one group of people and a different set of standards for another group. That would surely be unequal and unfair. After all, is not equality under the law a basic principle of Western civilization?

So if it is wrong for a robber to threaten their victim with violence in order to get their cash, then so it must be wrong for the state to threaten violence on the taxpayers in order to get their money. This is robbery. Indeed, the state is nothing more than the largest and most successful criminal organization in a given geographic territory. And because I oppose robbery, I oppose the state. And I oppose taxation. That a society under laissez-faire happens to see standards of living for the poorest of the poor increase faster than any under any other socio-economic system is a happy coincidence, to be sure, but not my primary concern.

To understand why high levels of taxation and spending do not help the poor, it is important to understand how wealth is created. Wealth is created through the efforts of individuals in the market economy. Indeed, there is a supreme justice in that wages in the market economy reflect roughly the evaluations of consumers as to the value of the contributions of those individuals. Wages are determined (on the upper bound) by a workers marginal revenue product, or basically how much they contribute to the productive process. How close those wages are to the upper bound depends on the competitiveness of the marketplace.

Why are wages so much higher today in Canada than in the Philippines, or many other third world countries? Why are wages so much higher today in England and the USA then they were 300 years ago? A social democrat will tell you that labour unions and progressive legislation brought about these changes. But the reality is that we have centuries of capital accumulation which has made workers more productive, and hence their salaries are more renumerative. But confiscatory tax rates take money out of the market economy, funds which could have been reinvested in more capital and in new enterprises, creating jobs and raising wages. Instead, that money is spent on consumption, and the money is spent by bureaucrats on behalf of the people with considerable loss along the way, through the funding of the bureaucracy itself and the fact that the bureaucrats are whoely unaware of the value scales of the individuals on whose behalf that money is spent. In fact, a lot of the money is spent on counter productive activities, like anti-trust which punishes companies for being too productive, or regulatory enforcement of arbitrary standards, or participating in Washington's wars of conquest in the middle east. So all of this money, which could have been reinvested in the economy, creating more opportunities and more wealth is instead wasted on pointless activities and of course a considerable amount goes to enrich the politically powerful and the well connected.

Ronald Regan (a two bit hack, to be sure, but he did have a way with words) once said that the best welfare program is a good job. And that is what high levels of government spending prevent. The creation of good jobs. Except of course for the bureaucracy, but their salaries come directly from the salaries of ordinary Canadians. And that is fundamentally the problem with the state. In the market economy, interactions are win-win. You are hungry, so you trade your money for a sandwich. You get the food, one of your most basic needs is satisfied, and the sandwich maker earns a living. Win, win. And virtually all market exchanges are win-win because individuals are uniquely situated to understand when they will benefit from a trade, because they alone are aware of their value scales, and they have considerable experience satisfying them. They spend their whole lives doing that. But with the state, interactions are win-lose. Sure, a bureaucrat might enjoy a cushy salary, simple work, and nice benefits, but their salary comes directly from the salaries of working Canadians. They benefit, but other people suffer so that they may benefit. The state is predatory, taking from one and giving to another. Or, to quote Bastiat, "L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde".

It's pretty amazing people are still willing to argue against lower taxes. Pre COVID the US economy was rip roaring, with an administration focused on deregulation, low taxes and jobs. Wage growth was up, lowest unemployment with minority's, etc. People are really going to sit here an say low taxes won't help the poor?

Yeah he did and on the other hands he was making trillions in deficit ....
So yeah what a wealth creation indeed.
I guess some didn’t learn anything from what happened in 2008 ....
I’m rich I can buy anything I want , and they lose their house by levering debts From their house equity too high .

What’s fascinating with you 2 is you think diminishing returns doesn’t exist in economy !
As if taxes have absolutely no benefits at all as a whole when you think about what it serves .
Example : having taxes that pay for universal healthcares and education it’s bad because having a healthy and educated work force must be bad right ?
Yes it might be bad for corporations since it prevent them to take advantage of the ignorance of its workers but as a whole the economy runs much better since workers Are as well making better decisions being educated and healthy .

Cool data point, bro. So, like, if your theory that lower taxes makes an economy rip roaring you should be able to show clear and overwhelming economic evidence that lower tax jurisdictions do way better, right??????? So let's see your homework.

Nice resume of libertarian economics , you are a good apostle !
Sad all the data’s doesn’t agree with you ...
If taxes wouldn’t help the poor the proofs in the United States would be in the best place ever but unfortunately, the popes in the US are in the worst position in the G7 ...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pewr...e-u-s/%3famp=1

“Over the past 50 years, the highest-earning 20% of U.S. households have steadily brought in a larger share of the country’s total income. In 2018, households in the top fifth of earners (with incomes of $130,001 or more that year) brought in 52% of all U.S. income, more than the lower four-fifths combined, according to Census Bureau data.”

“ Income inequality in the U.S. is the highest of all the G7 nations, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”

“ The wealth gap between America’s richest and poorer families more than doubled from 1989 to 2016, according to a recent analysis by the Center.”

“ Middle-class incomes have grown at a slower rate than upper-tier incomes over the past five decades, the same analysis found. From 1970 to 2018, the median middle-class income increased from $58,100 to $86,600, a gain of 49%. By comparison, the median income for upper-tier households grew 64% over that time, from $126,100 to $207,400.”

Seems beside the non existence of the diminishing returns , you totally disregard the fact that the capitalism you speak of isn’t fair and doesn’t work the way you say it will because pure capitalism default is too concentrated more and more wealth in less and less of earners having it !
Which mean as time goes by , wealth gap increase and the economy is profiting less and less to the majority .....

IMHO I consider debt and taxe the same .
Both are good and necessary when use responsibly but becomes very destructive when it attain too high levels .

Like anything else in life actually ....

Ps: you know poker playing gamble , if it were true what you believe in , why is so hard to prove and the majority of data doesn’t show what you are saying ?
Why over 200 countries, non does it ?

Are all the world and it’s leaders being dumb for the past 50 years ? The Right included ?

If it would of been such a strong facts , your ideas would been implemented by now somewhere .....

“Over the past 50 years, the highest-earning 20% of U.S. households have steadily brought in a larger share of the country’s total income. In 2018, households in the top fifth of earners (with incomes of $130,001 or more that year) brought in 52% of all U.S. income, more than the lower four-fifths combined, according to Census Bureau data."


Actually, looking at these statistical groupings is really quite misleading, because someone who is in the bottom 1/5th of income earners today might not be in 10 years. But the bottom 1/5th will always be earning a low income, because you are looking specifically at the bottom 1/5th. And income doesn't tell the whole story anyway, because someone could be rich and have very little income. The reality is that people rise and fall between these income groups all the time. It also makes very little sense to me to compare income inequality instead of say absolute standards of living. It would make more sense to actually track flesh and blood individuals, and say "okay this guy was in the bottom 1/5th of income in the 70s, where is he now, where did he go throughout his whole life". But that wouldn't supply the misleading statistics that welfare state apologists are looking for.


I also do not think you have demonstrated that the USA is some sort of low tax paradise. On average Canadians are taxed about 10% more than the OECD mean, whereas Americans are taxed about 10% less.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/cana...s-a-catch.html

I do think we get better value for our taxes, because that money is spent on a welfare instead instead of a global military empire, but we would be much better off with dramatically lower taxes. Also, we have higher taxes on the middle class than America.

There is a very simple reason why it is so hard to prove that freedom and prosperity go hand and hand. And that is because the state has a massive propaganda machine constantly shouting out the message that more government is a good thing. The public school system, politicians, the media, academia, bureaucrats, there are literally millions of people whose job it is to indoctrinate the public into believing that big government is necessary. The few lone voices of reason can scarcely be heard among the cacophony of statist voices amplified by billions of dollars in state expenditure.

THe problem you have is taxes are not fair. You have companies like Amazon paying next to nothing in taxes. The rich avoid taxes and the tax burden is on the middle and lower class.

I agree that the USA economy in reality was fake as you were running up huge deficits still .


Of the topic but onb Covid Bill Gates was on Fox Sunday (Yes Uke I watch Chris Wallace and Meet the Press) and said Trumps border closure is actually one of the reasons for their high covid rate the exact opposite of what Trump says . His argument everyone was scrambling to get back from Europe and China and were never required to quarantine thus spreading the disease.

He also said any western developed country that has not got its testing to the required levels and delivering testing results in 24 hours is doing a poor job.

My homework? Reports are released regularly via the Whitehouse. Here is one:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/...-hits-new-low/

I don’t understand because I think inthis world and for decades , lot of right wing government exist and why aren’t they doing what you believe to be the answer ?

Fwiw, country with almost no government turn to almost anarchy, fighting factions with each other ....
Seem you believe a good economy is possible without stability ?

Let me ask you .....do you think giving to the people the concept of :
“Equal opportunity” , a good thing or a bad thing ?

Ps: I’m not speaking about equal outcome ....

Would you agree that anything supposedly good that is badly used can become bad ?
Yeah you are right about what you said , but it’s not taxes in Itself but rather how they implemented and manage it .

Like I said .... taxes , interest rates, debts !
They all have their functionality that becomes very bad if not use properly.

But what I don’t agree is to say Like the libertarians suggest(imo) :
debts, taxes are bad 100% Of the time , no matter what the situation and I just can’t abide to that cause it just ain’t true ....

I’m not saying taxes, debts etc have positive value I’m just saying they have neutral value that can become positive with the right push and used correctly.

Right economic gives it a negative value regardless of any existing situation , shrug.

And thats ideology , thinking something is true 100% of the time , regardless of anything (like religion and any other ideology) .....

That’s great !
So you must think trudeau made a super good job economically as well in Canada , correct ?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...t-rate-canada/

In 2018 and 2019 Canada had the lowest unemployment since 2000 !

Actually it’s even better than that !

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ains-continue/

“ Canada’s unemployment rate fell to a new four-decade low in May, as the economy followed up April’s record hiring spree with a month of modest job gains and rising wages.”

“ That’s the lowest since Statscan began gathering comparable data in 1976, beating the previous low of 5.6 per cent set last November and December.”

Seem the liberals are the real economic party am I right ?

Based on that assumption than that would make Donald Trump a great president

Exactly but conservative blast trudeau While praising trump.
Shrug.

But I personally condemn both .
Creating huge debts when you hit historically low unemployment while giving taxes break or subsidies to corporations makes absolutely no sense .

You do it when the economy suffer and both did the opposite even tho trudeau did less damage by creating less debts And create more infrastructures compare to trump .

I mean they even praise Trump , those advocating free markets, but trump keep raising tariffs on Canada and the rest of the world ......
Again not doing what the right think as how a good economy with free market should work ...

I am glad you also came to the conclusion low taxes are good. I wonder why Liberals implemented METR to keep up with the US?(https://www.canada.ca/en/department-...ent-in-g7.html)

Weird Canada had to lower taxes to keep up with the US. The 2 fastest growing economies in the G7. Canada still has the highest household debt in the G7 though. I would think high income tax and energy costs help attribute to that.

No i think they both suck and are ruining their countries. They have about 40% of people that just can't realize how uneducated they are for voting for either one.

I think Milton Friedman said it best. A society that puts equality before freedom ends up with neither. A society which puts freedom before equality ends up with a good measure of both.


"I donÂ’t understand because I think inthis world and for decades , lot of right wing government exist and why arenÂ’t they doing what you believe to be the answer ?"


During the 19th century classical liberalism (then known as liberalism, not to be confused with modern day liberalism which is basically the polar opposite) was a mass political movement. Liberals then supported unhampered free markets, property rights, as well as freedom of religion, speech, and the press. They supported international peace brought about by free trade. Liberalism arose as a reaction to the mercantilism and absolutism in Europe of the 17th and 18th century. Thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, Richard Cantillon, Turgot, and John Locke paved the way for this mass political movement with their brilliant texts.

So the ideas that I advocate were implemented. Not just in one country, but across the entire European and North American continents. And the results were incredible. The flourishing of civilizations. The end of hunger. Skyrocketting standards of living. The erradication of many diseases. Lifespans were elongated. People became prosperous. Legal systems and constitutions were established that triumphed the rights of the individual and the right to own property.

Ultimately, history is shaped not by the actions of men, but by the power of ideas. Unfortunately, good ideas do not always win out. By the end of the 19th century, liberalism had grown into disrepute. Despite the incredible accomplishments of freedom, the ideologies of fascism and communism became popular on the continent, and in North America as well. Today, very few people believe in liberalism. Most advocate for wealth redistribution by the state, a dirigist economy, the welfare state, and socialism. Confiscatory tax rates are common, and governments routinely pick winners and losers in the market place. We are seeing the return of mercantilism in many sectors of the economy. The death of liberalism.

Well when I see the debts level of the states , I don’t see why we should follow them but again for you , it’s clear debts as no meaning or importance ....

And again , i am not saying 0 taxes is the best solution ....
Are you ?