no, increasing gross domestic product creates the majority of jobs - many of them are run through small to medium business.
pensions are not a tax, they are "forced savings."
How does a cap and trade system compare to a carbon tax... are both equally effective?
Emissions trading or cap and trade ("cap" meaning a legal limit on the quantity of a certain type of chemical an economy can emit each year) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
A carbon tax is usually defined as a tax based on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated from burning fuels. It puts a price on each tonne of GHG emitted, sending a price signal that will, over time, elicit a powerful market response across the entire economy, resulting in reduced emissions.
now, yes, i copied and pasted that - but to your question - they are both consumption taxes.
Carbon tax says you'll pay for being a huge polluter. Cap and trade says there are incentives to play by the rules with respect to output.
i'm not sure they would necessarily reinvest the money
the government very rarely ear marks tax money
Haha, then what would they do with it? Just goes into the big pot?
Who knows - it goes somewhere, but we cannot say with precision.
Who's plan will do the most to reduce greenhouse gasses?
They are all sidestepping the issue - they don't want to bring up pricing or legitimizing it as a potential tax.
...and yet again, the NDP pulls out the next generation...
Mulcair says we've lost 400,000 jobs, Harper says we lead the G7 in creating them... who's right?
Just depends if you see the glass half full or empty.
And now Trudeau says he's got "the worst job creation record"
Is Harper actually the worst PM on job creation since WW2?
We have lost jobs, but that's a problem across north america, and many industrialized nations.
Have we been better or worse over all, compared to others, and how much does that owe to Mr. Harper?
Well, Jim Stanford, who is the chief economist of Unifor says so - but I want to see how they are defining job creation...many of these situations are difficult because it depends how you define your variables.
Our economy is not perfect but if you look beyond many of the transparent signs (employment) you'll find our economy quite strong. For instance, debt to GDP ratio is very low.
Notice how nobody is mentioning debt to GDP ratio/
Statistics are a funny thing - and creative accounting can turn profit into loss.
People should remember that you can interpret numbers in different ways.
Mr. Mulcair is still calling Mr. Trudeau "Justin"
Thoughts about Mr. Trudeau's infrastructure investment plan? Good time for it?
Yes, I have no problem with the Liberal attempt to "pump the prime" but increasing the deficit.
sorry, buy increasing the deficit
it's a political football, not a serious economic one
No, he's thinking the short run - but it's honestly not a tragedy to borrow today for tomorrow.
Another question: whose tax increases are more advisable, increasing personal income taxes on top 1% (Trudeau) or increasing corporate taxes (Mulcair)? What's fairer? What does less economic damage?
Well, I may be biased but I would hesitate before raising any taxes - and I wouldn't touch taxes on small to medium business.
Would creating a new bank actually do any good?
But if you had to choose?