Back

(Of course Canadians ought to be free to work as long as they want, and to stop work as soon as they can afford it.)

Regardless of my views on the policy merits, having made such a promise, of certainly the #CPC ought to honour it if they come to power.

2/2

@mpjgregoire people should always have the option to work at any age.

In modern economic theories, the unavailability of jobs is seen as deliberate, a consequence of monetary policy.

The body of unemployed job seekers limits labour power, forcing a permanent state of competition for jobs, which benefits capital, and increases capital's share of productivity.

Fundamentally, the capital share of productivity needs to decrease, and the labour share needs to increase.

@mpjgregoire it would be interesting to get elaborated positions on capital/labour share from Poilievre and Carney. Orthodox Canadian political economics insists that economic problems can only be solved by increasing the capital share...less govt. spending, less services, pro-business subsidies and policies to increase investor returns...

No party in Canada strays from that orthodoxy, so none of them can credibly claim to have public interest as a priority.

@mpjgregoire watch all the parties swerving around this with a mix of boutique policy ideas without ever laying down a goal....do they want capital investment to increase it's share...or do they want labour/other to increase it's share?

I'm convinced labour needs to increase it's share....the broad labour that includes everyone with an income that is non-passive. Capital needs to work harder, be innovative, and stay out of politics, which has not been the case.

@plantarum There's a lot of value in many non-paid activities, for the individual and for society. We shouldn't necessarily be dedicating more of our lives to work just because our lives are longer and healthier.

But how shall we pay for the costs of our longer and healthier lives? Another five years of food, clothing, shelter, transport, Disney cruises with the grandkids? The money comes from paid work, either saved up by the individual or transferred from others currently working.

1/2

@plantarum
Now, individuals should certainly be free to be good savers and to retire early by foregoing spending in their working years. But when it comes to CPP and OAS, the question is how much should government compell people to give up in order to fund retirement?

My opinion is that there are already heavy burdens on Canadians in their thirties, forties and fifties: let's not make them heavier to pay for longer retirements, unless they choose for themselves to do so.

2/2

@mpjgregoire

I agree we need to reduce the financial burden on the next generation. But we shouldn't do this by making them work longer before they get the benefits I will (hopefully) enjoy myself in a few years.

We're quick to insist on personal responsibility when it comes to individual finances. But we have a long history of relieving corporations from their obligations. Corporate taxation has declined for decades, while we continue to subsidize oil and gas when claiming to be working towards transition to renewables.

I've been very fortunate, and it is more than fair for me to contribute taxes to support my neighbours. Canadian corporations have been extraordinarily fortunate, and it's past time they started contributing something back as well.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/100-years-of-canadian-income-taxes/article_fc05e30b-c43e-5f5e-86fa-788069e206e4.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fossil-fuels-canada-subsidies-1.7156152

@plantarum We shouldn't care about the well-being of corporations per se; what's important is the goods and services they produce, the people they employ, the inputs they purchase, and the value they pass onto their owners. That is to say, corporations are only important for how they affect the finances of people: selling to them, paying them, buying from them or their employers, increasing their capital. What the best system of corporate taxation is for the benefit of people, I'm not sure.

1/2

@plantarum
I read this article arguing the best corporate income tax would be 0 in 2010: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/

I was unconvinced; in particular if corporations are taxed much differently from individuals, won't people set up corporations to avoid personal taxes?

But it is true that a dollar the government takes from a corporation in tax is an extra dollar that the corporation charges its customers, or can't pay its employees, or can't spend on its inputs, or doesn't send to its owners.

2/2

@mpjgregoire

I'm familiar with that argument - taxes just take away money that corporations would otherwise use to hire people, or otherwise contribute to our communities.

While I can't say what the best balance of all these issues are, I have two fundamental issues with this position.

First, it's increasingly clear that the interests of large corporations are at odds with the interests of the rest of us. Amazon, Google, Uber, Loblaws, Canadian telecoms and oil & gas. It's not hard to find examples of companies who's activities are actively hostile to the interests of the larger community.

@mpjgregoire

And second, we don't extend these same principles to individuals. We basically accept that corporations deserve to be encouraged via tax cuts and subsidies, despite increasingly dubious benefits returned.

But despite growing evidence that programs like universal basic income have overwhelmingly positive, and cost-effective, impacts on individuals and communities, we balk at implementing them because individuals are expected to stand on their own merits.

It's a kind of upside-down world. Individuals should be more self-sufficient, like "successful businesses", while many of our most "successful businesses" directly benefit from the kinds of supports they would deny individuals.