While all those countries that blew their wads “saving” banks wanted to punish consumers, savers, stock owners, and borrowers, Canada stood firm.
And got the votes.
While all those countries that blew their wads “saving” banks wanted to punish consumers, savers, stock owners, and borrowers, Canada stood firm.
And got the votes.
I can think of nothing better than a bank tax or levy and also a condition that this can not be passed on to the consumers. For far too long banks have been gouging people with service charges and filling their CEOs’ and directors’ pockets.
Got a mutual fund T? RRSP? Pension? Look at its division of assets under the heading ‘Financial’.
You running-dog, capitalistic pig.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on others,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
Thank you Mr. Harper
Yes T, a bank tax wouldn’t have been passed down to the consumer. Taxes never are. Nope. No way.
Well, speaking as somebody whose pension plans, RRSPs, and other investments INCLUDE owning stocks in banks, I’m grateful.
Thank you PMSH and Jim Flaherty.
Like many of the socialist hare-brained schemes T and his running dogs are so in favour of, this particular scheme to tax banks or financial transactions would have punished the innocent.
It also reveals a ‘taxation as punishment for bad behaviour’ moral code that is totally consistent with the mindset of the left, which has a pathological need to fight imaginary oppressors.
The cause of their unhappiness ie, their inability to be content, can easily be found by looking in the mirror.
Apparently Japan, India and Brazil were also against this ridiculous idea. Taxation would be passed from the end consumer to the utopian totalitarians to fritter away on some other ineffective program.
How’d that more taxation thing work out for Greece?
Sigh. Businesses are not tax payers, businesses are tax collectors. You can try to use regulatory sophistry all you want, but the only thing that accomplishes is the creation of an elaborate shell game. Every tax levied on a business is ultimately paid by the people who purchase its product or service, or the people who depend on it for their own employment.
Reagan had to battle this mentality, the mentality that led to the economic disaster of Carterism and is making a repeat appearance (guess what, Reaganism is likewise due for a repeat appearance. What goes around comes around):
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn’t pay taxes…Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business…If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business.”
Taxes on businesses are absorbed either by increasing the price of its products or cutting expenses (read: jobs). The idea that a business will just “eat” the tax and take this hit entirely in its profit margin is wildly wishful thinking. That would simply be the path to going out of business, which no matter what you think, that is not a cause for revelry because the entire economy loses value.
T, failed tax incidence in econ 101.
Well-put, Kevin.
But there is more to this even than you mentioned, because, unless it’s groceries, finished products are taxed.
So the business is taxed.
It raises its prices on its raw materials, and the manufacturers pay an inflated GST, HST, due to this business tax.
Then the retailers must pay extra for the finished product to sell to consumers.
Then the end consumer pays more GST, HST, PST on the end product.
Governments are simply addicted to the revenues they currently generate. And because consumers show a willingness to pay these high prices, any cut to thes corporate taxe will likely be retained by the corporations. And for lefties – god forbid – these extra profits might go into: 1. higher dividends, or stock prices. 2. Research and development or 3. (the horror!) Jobs
And therefore citizens would become less reliant on government!
Therefore, government would NEVER reduce corporate taxes.
The Troll is just pissed that despite having to pay off it’s student loan it still can’t find a job and the prospects of finally moving out of mom’s basement are fading fast.
I did not hear where the Ignatieff & the Loyal Opposition stood on this issue, John McCallum what would you have done? In Favour or Against.
Damn it’s nice to still have realistic countries.
I was surprised by the many negative comments and ratings following the Globe&Mail article. You would think that even the most ardent anti-Harperist would have to grant that a bank tax especially an international one) is not in Canada’s interests. Who are these people making these comments?
I bet if Stephen Harper cured cancer tomorrow, the people of Toronto would take to the streets to demand more cancer.
Ugh; linking to the Glob and Pail. These two rulings arising from the G conferences saved Canadian taxpayers several times the cost of the meetings. The cost of these meetings was much maligned by the Left Media.
Don’t forget in Eurabia the Goverment of those nations bought alot of the banks out for fire sale prices. So in essence the sociaists’ tax the people and the banks and in the end the government who owns the banks get the funds and can use it to pay for their socialists’ experiments. It’s wealth redistribution but it’s the socialists governments that would get the money at the end of the day, their goal had nothing to do with proping up banks in times of need it’s was pure socialists’ greed they are desperate for cash.
Good for Harper and Flaherty. Now Prentice should tell them to shove their carbon tax.
I suspect that the Troll would prefer Chavez’s methods.
“Now Prentice should tell them to shove their carbon tax.” I meant the Europeans, not Harper and Flaherty
Hey T, if you don’t want all those CEOs and director’s pockets to be filled, stop putting money in the bank!
Well good to see that Flaherty and company are against this insane tax. Most surprising is the Australian Finance Minister Swann being against it.
The Aussies with Rudd still want to have a carbon tax and a Mining tax that would ruin the country.
Interesting times indeed.
Good point skip; and there is always the Credit Union option. Sometimes they have a better deal, sometimes not.
I bet El Korab will take a shot at Harper over this.
Also notice he wins on Maternal Health initiative. Cameron backed him, but what was the main line of the report from London, disagreement on the bank tax.
Anyway, Harper wins. Iggy and the other kids with their face pressed against the store window are now going to be left hoping for a security disaster. Trust me, they really are.
Posted by: T>
“For far too long banks have been gouging people with service charges and filling their CEOs’ and directors’ pockets.”
Then don’t bank! It’s a free country after all…………I will worry about what money the banks take from me as far as service fee’s – you worry about your own money.
Why is the left so damned worried about everyone else’s money and who’s getting rich besides them? That’s right next we should force the banks to give subprime loans to people that can’t afford to pay them back, great idea, after all the banks owe us money and respect.
If we don’t get it from them – we just take it.
Guys, T just says things. Ignore him.
Why should other countries/banks bail out the financially incompetent ones?
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe>
“Why should other countries/banks bail out the financially incompetent ones?”
Obviously the question is rhetorical – but the answer is they shouldn’t!
The parasitic weak sucking from the strong will be the eventual collapse of all western nations. From within, from abroad and on many fronts.
I suppose that idea makes people like T feel that they may actually “be someone” some day. Nope, people like T will still be parasitic only far less useful to the new powers that always will be.
People like T crave the attention AND the Cheetos of others.
Just my thoughts.
Indeed, Knight 99. Greece (for example) blew its money. It will have to fix its own problems.
Banks making too much money? Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t there a problem with banks not makiing enough money, oh, EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO?
Even if I don’t own bank shares or have scads of money on deposit, I prefer the banks/credit unions/etc to be profitable.
Our resident troll shows the usual lack of functional gray matter by espousing the common leftie notion of applying a tax to business, yet stipulating that that tax not be passed onto the customers of that business.
In other news, pigs fly. Story at 11:00.
(As much as I hate feeding trolls, this particular issue is a personal beef of mine … the idea of taxing a business, yet telling that business not to pass it along to the customers is so fundamentally contrary to Reality, that it begs a response).
Posted by: norm>
“Even if I don’t own bank shares or have scads of money on deposit, I prefer the banks/credit unions/etc to be profitable.”
In other words – as an adult would think.
My position is not give these stupid governments ..any..more ..money.. to BURN!
“The parasitic weak sucking from the strong will be the eventual collapse of all western nations.”
Indeed. I learned something the other day when I had my dog at the vet. He said that if an animal, even a large animal, has a severe enough infestation of fleas the animal can actually become anemic due to the amount of blood being lost. It seems so hard to believe, because each flea by itself is an almost negligible annoyance, but if you have enough of them they can bleed their host dry. That is what is happening all over the Western world. Liberal policies encourage the “fleas” of society to drink deeply, be fruitful and multiply. As if that weren’t enough, they also advertise heavily and encourage fleas from other lands to come and partake in the bounty. When they eventually kill the very host that provides them sustenance they may find themselves up sh*t creek without a proverbial paddle; but unintended consequences are, after all, a liberal specialty.
So does “T” stand for twit, tit or twat?
Just askin!
The problem with the proposed tax is that it would be collected from all banks, but only used to bail out banks which followed more risky, and less prudent courses of action. This just encourages stupid (or maybe, not so stupid, but cunning) bankers to take more risks, as doing so will first line their individual pockets with bigger bonuses, and then, when the next banking bubble pops, they get bailed out by more prudent banks.
Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan to rein in excess risk and leverage, doesn’t it? I’ve been a bit disappointed with Harper and Prentice as of late, but they certainly knocked the ball out of the park on this one.
thank god the liberals are not in power. they would have jumped on a new tax like a liberal on a scandal
The bank tax would punish savers but .25% interest rates didn’t? Quite frankly the amount of money the bank tax would have saved savers is small in comparison to the damage already done to savers with this absurd low interest rate policy. Far below what a free market would have set. It is a sad comment on the world today when we get all excited about the socialism that didn’t happen in the midst of a tsunami of government intervention in the free market.
Relax T – your problem is now solved! Wal.Mart Canada has just been awarded a bank licence! So bank there you know how they reduce prices – Oh, you are T – maybe not!
My bad, I did not give the source! It is: Page FP6 of Financial Post June 5, 2010. It reads: Walmart Canada Bank – order to commence and carry on business – “Notice is hereby given, in accordance with subsection 56(1) of the bank act — on behalf of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions issued an order to commence and carry on business by Walmart Canada Bank effective June 1, 2010.”
So does “T” stand for twit, tit or twat?
Just askin!
Posted by: Horny Toad at June 6, 2010 2:11 AM
================
Twinkle Toes.
credit where credit is due.