Time to do something with the corporate tax rate

Value-added taxes (VAT) and GST aside, I think it's time the feds seriously looked at reducing our corporate tax rate by at least 6 per cent. At the moment, our rates are just too damn high:

In a review of corporate tax rates at the beginning of 2007 in 92 countries, the average rate in the EU was 24.2 percent, compared with 27.8 percent in the OECD countries, 28 percent in Latin America and 30.1 percent in Asia-Pacific. Among developed economies, Canada's corporate tax rate of 36.1 percent is one of the highest.

Moreover, with rates like this, is it any wonder that corporations on Canadian soil are having a tough time competing and, in turn, are being taken over. They just can't mobilize the type of capital needed to make a go of it in a global economy. As the saying goes, "capital flows to the area of least resistance" Which explains why many Canadian firms and manufacturing companies are leaving for greener [low tax] pastures.

(Source: marketwire)

Hey New Brunswickers, Wake Up And Smell The Asphalt!

I noticed this comment over at Gerry Nicholls' blog:

I couldn't help notice that Canadian taxpayers will be funding Mr. Harper's and Mr. Graham's "great relationship" to the tune of $207 million Canadian taxpayers dollars. Who would have thunk it? Road paving in Atlantic Canada as a political tool. Haven't seen that one in the last few decades!

I have to admit, though infrastructure is a necessity for any healthy economy, the highway deal announcement wasn't anything that we haven't seen before (for decades down here). That being, politicians trying to buy votes with our own money. To the tune of $400 million of New Brunswickers hard earned money. And for what? A road leading through a bunch of towns and cities with dwindling industries. As an old family friend from Shediac used to say, "the sweet smell of asphalt mixed with ocean air truly means an election is just around the corner". Maybe?

However, I think the only safe bet here is that this announcement will have very little economic impact on our region, not to mention, there is still no "new" industry on the table as of yet which we can hang our hat on. So for those of you who are touting this as a great economic success leading towards self-sufficiency, I propose that you "Wake Up And Smell The Asphalt!" because this is nothing more than status quo as usual.

It wasn't the 35 degree temperatures that were making people in Toronto feel very uncomfortable today

It was the thought of Mayor David Miller ramming a couple more taxes down their throats.

That's right folks, on top of all the recent local tax hikes, Mayor [Miller] is considering imposing a $60 vehicle tax on top of the $74 provincial registration fee for motorists. And if that isn't bad enough, he is considering increasing land transfer taxes by a whopping 100 per cent.

And according to Bill Johnston, of the Toronto Real Estate Board, this increase "would give Toronto the highest land transfer taxes in Canada and the second highest in North America."

I think it's safe to say that the moratorium on new taxes proposed by the CTF's Kevin Gaudet will never see the light of day under this tax-and-spend dipper mayor.

Update

Just for good measure, why not throw in a sidewalk tax. *sigh*

Is it time to embrace uber-natalism?

Paul Tuns seems to think so, however, I would be lying if I said that punishing taxpayers for not having children and proposing massive structural changes (in the tax system) as a means to alter declining demographics (birth rates) is the way to go. What we truly need is broader tax cuts right across the board as this will stimulate the type of economic growth necessary to sustain an increase in the fertility rate, not simultaneous tax increases and tax cuts.

Gerrymandering the cabinet

I see my good blogging colleague Gerry Nicholls has come up with a few great suggestions for Harper et al. in reference to a possible cabinet tune up (replacements and/or demotions). Just for fun, I will add my top three replacements (in bold print) to Gerry's suggestions below.

1. Defence Minister Gordon O'Conner: No brainer. Defence supposed to be one of the issues the Tories own. Whether through bad luck or incompetence, O'Conner has made a strength into a weakness.

Replacements: Art Hanger, Peter MacKay or Gerry Ritz

2. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: Huge disappointment. Maybe it's not fair to blame Flaherty for all the fiscal miscues of this government but he has been the point man for the Income Trust flip flip, the ABM bank silliness and of course the big spending budget. Maybe we need a real conservative as Finance Minister.

Replacements: Monte Solberg, Diane Ablonczy or Maxime Bernier

(I think it's finally time for a fiscally conservative Albertan to be put in charge of the nations's finances. I think the last one to be from there in the last four decades was Don Mazankowski in 1991-93)

3. Heritage Minister Bev Oda: Never met a dopey "arts" project she didn't like to subsidize. More Liberal than a Liberal, Oda is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Replacements: Helena Guergis, Diane Ablonczy (if she doesn't get finance) or Lynne Yelich

Taxes, taxes and more taxes!!

I always said there was a downside to giving "new" taxing powers to municipal regimes (as all people need is to have their liquor taxed).

With policies such as these at the local level, and with flip-flop McGuinty in power provincially, it really doesn't surprise me to see that Ontario has one of the latest dates in Canada for Tax Freedom Day ahead of only Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Definition of Tax Freedom Day : the day of the year when taxpayers finally start working for themselves after working since January 1st to pay the equivalent of the total tax bill imposed on them by all levels of government. This year it officially falls on June 20th. See table below. (Courtesy of the Fraser Institute) **click to enlarge**

Isn't it ironical, don't you think?

Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for an $88,900 standard research grant to...get this...study taxes.

Reminds me of the movie Good Will Hunting near the end when professor Lambeau sees Sean (Robin Williams) packing his bags in his office, he asks where he's planning on going, of which Sean replies that he intends to travel the world...Pakistan, the Middle East and Philadelphia, I think? Sean tells Lambeau of an upcoming class reunion and tells Lambeau that he will buy him a drink at it. Lambeau responds that the drinks at these reunions are free, and Sean says he was being "ironical".

Ironical? Definition: taxpayers paying for studies to study taxes.

Hey Mr. Flaherty, where's all the tax relief and innovation?

As I'm sure many of you are well aware, attempting to make ends meet can sometimes be a daunting challeng in a province, like New Brunswick, where traditional industries are slowly dwindling and jobs are scarce. NBers work very hard for the money they earn. When they have to give part of that money to government they deserve to have it spent as responsibly as if they were spending it themselves.

Which brings me to the federal conservative's "economic" record over the past year. We here at NB Taxpayer rate Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's handling of the economic file as "poor". Why? Because they veered away from their commitments (made during the '06 election) to reduce the size of government, spend less, and lower taxes as well as strengthen free trade, competition and innovation. Let's be honest, these guys have been content (thus far) on preserving the status quo through more "Liberal-lite" policies rather than delivering on their promises of being a much more fiscally responsible regime.

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

[Financial Post]

"Though they promised to do away with it, corporate welfare continues. Instead of the disgraceful Technology Partnerships Canada, we now have the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative, which will hand out $225-million annually over five years, to aerospace and defence firms.

There has been no effort to overhaul the employment insurance program, which has strayed so far away from its original mandate to give short-term assistance to the unemployed that it is used as an income supplement for seasonal workers, restricting labour mobility."

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

[Canadian Free Press]

"We now have a Conservative minority government in Ottawa that is swelling the ranks of the bureaucracy and shoveling out money like there's no tomorrow. Like the minority Liberal government of Paul Martin before them, they have a huge surplus in the federal budget, yet the Harper government isn't using the money to pay down the debt, nor is it giving any of it back to the taxpayers. [...]

The word "surplus" is key in that it means governments are collecting way more in taxes than they need. Given that the average Canadian family has 45% of its income confiscated by the various levels of government, Nearly one-third more than they spend on food, shelter and clothing, one would think that governments would give some of that money back, or at least use it to pay off debt."

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

[Andrew Coyne]
"Last year’s centrepiece in this regard was the tax “cut” that was actually a tax increase. The previous Liberal government, in one of its last acts, had cut the bottom rate of tax for 2005 from 16% to 15%. The May budget then raised it back to 15.5%. But because the Liberal tax cut had not yet been formally enacted into law, the Tories claimed the 15.5% rate actually represented, not an increase from 15%, but a cut from 16%.

But that was child’s play compared to this year’s installment. Yesterday’s column talked about the government’s misuse of the term “tax cuts” to refer to what are really spending programs, delivered through the tax system -- what the budget elsewhere accounts as tax expenditures, $14.8-billion of them in all. A few other examples:

[...] Item. The budget maintains, notwithstanding a $25-billion increase in spending over two years, that the government is showing unwavering fiscal discipline. How? Because it has kept the growth in spending to no more than the growth in the economy, “on average.”

Now, people like me would argue the percent-of-GDP measure is misleading: it implies that, so long as spending has not grown faster than the economy, it has not grown at all. But I supppose that’s within the bounds of acceptable political chicanery.

Or would be, if in fact spending had grown slower than the economy. But, again, the budget’s own figures show that it hasn’t. Program spending was 12.8% of GDP in fiscal 2006, 13.1% in 2007, and will be 13.3% in 2008.

How, then, do the Tories maintain that spending has grown no faster than the economy, even “on average?” By including in the average fiscal 2006, a year in which nominal spending actually declined slightly (though only after a nearly 15% gain the previous year). Just one problem: the Liberals were in power in fiscal 2006, or all but the last two months of it. The Tories are claiming credit for Liberal “restraint.”

Item. The budget claims to have solved “the fiscal imbalance” -- a debatable claim about a debatable problem. It does so largely by way of changes to the equalization system, among them a provision that would include 50% of provincial resource revenues in calculating the standard to which provinces must be “equalized.” Yet the Tories campaigned on a promise to exclude these revenues from the equalization formula, in their entirety.

A broken promise, right? Not according to the budget. Thanks to various add-ons and one-time payments, it claims, no province will be worse off under the 50% inclusion rate than it would be if resources were kept out entirely. This, it says, will “fulfill the Government’s commitment to fully exclude non-renewable natural resources revenues from the calculation of Equalization.” But it didn’t fully exclude them. It half-included them. It might have compensated provinces for breaking its promise, but it still broke the promise."

â€$¢â€$¢â€$¢

Now I realize that this government is focused on real issues like fighting with provincial leaders, RCMP, senators, etc. But let's get real here fellas, there is still a country's economy to run, so we would appreciate it if your government got back to work over the summer break to undo all these poor policy initiatives pronto. Maybe you can start by giving some of the money back in the form of real tax relief?

Photo of the week: add your own caption

[Courtesy CP Wire]

Something to remember

"Let me say this, I don't propose to campaign for votes in Nova Scotia by being cute with the truth. We are going to talk sense and talk straight, and if we can't then we shouldn't say anything at all. There is, after all, a clear distinction between a fact, a false impression and a falsehood. And no one can tell the difference any quicker than the people of Nova Scotia."

~ Bob Stanfield (1956, Yarmouth)

Nicholls: federal conservatives drifting to the left

Many of you who come here often probably already know that I'm not a big fan of the CBC. IMHO, the so-called public broadcaster is a waste of taxpayers money and should be privatized (or at the very least, reformed). Which is why the federal conservative's inaction on this file over the last year or so (while in government) has really, really dissappointed me.

Unfortunately, for the conservatives, I'm not the only one who has noticed their lack of effort. [Hat tip Gerry Nicholls, Political Watch] Read on

I agree with Nicholls

Here's an interesting screed by Gerry Nicholls in the Windsor Star on how the recent strategies, concocted by Harper's inner circle [in the PMO], have completely alienated "their own core support base". For those libertarians, classical liberals and conservatives who adhere to fiscal principles, it's definitely worth a read.

It's not about equalization, money or favouratism, it's about integrity

I have to say that yesterday was a very interesting day in politics for yours truly. Not only did I find this debate over the Atlantic accord quite unique and sometimes comical, I also found myself in the middle of a central Canada-Maritime feud due to one measly post I wrote on Tuesday below.

Moreover, what was even more interesting was the nasty emails I received from both Ontarioans and Albertans alike. The crux of their beefs towards the east seem to be as simple as: Maritimers are a bunch of whiny welfare bums looking for a handout! Nice. (and a very generalized historical effort, I might add)

I won't rehash the discussion I had regarding who received more help from the feds (over the years) when it comes to policies and subsidies. I won't get into the massive amount of money earmarked for mass immigration at the turn of the century (1905 to be exact) by the government to fill the vast Prairie West...like I said, I won't get into that. I won't get into the billions and billions of dollars funnelled into the Auto industry in Ontario...like I said, I won't get into that. I won't get into the millions and millions of dollars spent on the Aerospace industry in Quebec on a yearly basis...like I said, I won't get into that. I won't get into how the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact ensured that Ontario would be the benficiary of numerous auto production plants from Chrysler, Ford and General Motors...once again, I won't get into that.

But what I will get into is what I spoke about yesterday, no matter how you look at the 2005 off-shore deal (whether it's outrageous in your mind or it is legit?), the main concern here is a promise which was made by the current Prime Minister to keep the accord, in its original form, intact. A promise which he broke by agreeing to sign off on the O'Brien formula.

So essentially it's like the federal government saying to Ontario that we have decided to renege on the auto pact agreement signed by the government of Canada back in 1965 (but don't worry when your economy completely tanks as a result we will send you a check). I know, I know why would someone possible want to do that? as it would be economic suicide for that province, but are you starting to get the picture now? (circa Atlantic Canada & the National policy of 1879, i.e. Tariffs)

So to me, this is more than money, policy or regional favouratism, it's about keeping your word to an area that badly wants to get off equalization payments once and for all. Let National Post columnist Andrew Coyne explain:

As Opposition Leader, Mr. Harper was not only unequivocal in committing to full exclusion of resource revenues from any new equalization formula -- meaning no clawbacks -- but that this should apply, well, forever: i.e., sans cap. Here he is in the House of Commons on November 4, 2004:

"Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? ? Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario? The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have-not provinces forever."

It is not true, then, to say that the Accord has been violated. It is true that Mr. Harper played Atlantic Canadians for suckers. At least he is paying the price.

Notice Harper used the word "have-not" and I didn't. It's something that I refuse to do to this day because I see Atlantic Canada as a region that has "a lot", we are just underdeveloped due to years of political neglect and poor federal policies.

So it's like this Mr. Prime Minister, if you don't want to honour your word on the accord, then I suggest you start treating us with the respect that other "have" provinces (which you call them) have been afforded over the years. That's if you believe in equity for all provinces and not central Canada favouratism like your Liberal predecessors. Because as things stand right now, as John Crosbie explains, your government is nullifying "the principles of the Atlantic Accord". Nullifying, indeed.

Why we need a Truth in Politics Act

A few days ago I emphasized the need, along with Andrew Coyne, for a truth in politics act. And after reading the much publicized op-ed piece written by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in Saturday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, I can't help but think there truly is a need for this kind of legislation. Not only did his government not honour the signed 2005 off-shore agreement [Atlantic accord], Mr. Flaherty gave a woeful excuse as reasoning for not fixing the problem created by his '07 budget noting that his government does not engage in side deals. Here's his quote from the Herald:

"But there should be no misunderstanding: Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals. Equalization has been restored to a principles-based program for the first time in many years. That’s what all premiers asked us to do and that’s what all Canadians expect us to do."

Interesting. I guess this government is not only willing break signed agreements, it also suffers from a bad case of amnesia on side deals. Do the right thing Minister Flaherty and honour the accord in its original form.

Will the Tories break their promise to scrap the gun registry?

I can remember the days when "scrapping the gun registry" was a hot issue back when the Official Opposition’s gun control critic, Garry Breitkreuz, used to work along side Canadian Police Association president Const. Grant Obst to champion the cause. Comments, like the one below, and press releases used to be frequent when the Liberals were in power:

“Whether it’s the estimated 300,000 unclaimed guns in the old handgun registry; losing track of 38,629 licenced firearm owners in the last year; issuing 832 duplicate firearms licences; issuing dozens of licences with the wrong photographs, or the issuing of 57 registration certificates for 16 guns owned by one man, the Justice Department bureaucrats have proven themselves incapable of implementing Bill C-68 and have no hope of fulfilling the Minister’s promises,” commented Breitkreuz. “The gun registry is the biggest garbage collection system in Canada. No wonder the Liberals want to privatize this mess.”

Indeed. However, it looks as though the current Prime Minister and the Tories are slowly backing away from their pledge to get rid of this bureaucratic nightmare. As a blogger who sees this registry as a wasted $25 to $100 million per year [of taxpayers money] which could be invested more wisely into tools and programs which would better solidify law enforcement, I was very disappointed to see this article by Toronto Star Ottawa Bureau Chief Susan Delacourt (of all people) who sees Bill C-21 as dead on arrival and the gun registry as a government bureaucracy that will live to breathe another day:

"It is beginning to look like the Conservatives are not going to be able to keep their long-held promise to scrap the federal firearms-registration system."

As Harper said a few years back, "Canadians are right to demand better justice policy and safer communities."

Unfortunately, keeping the gun registry intact will do nothing to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, not to mention, it does nothing to make our streets and communities safer. That is why NB Taxpayer is demanding that Mr. Harper keep his promise and scrap this wasteful gun registry.

SCC rules "collective bargaining" a Charter protected right

Not usually a topic of choice on this blog, however, in its 6-1 decision, The Supreme Court of Canada "threw out sections of the B.C. Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, saying it was contrary to the charter because it interfered with the collective bargaining process."

“We conclude that s. 2(d) of the charter protects the capacity of members of labour unions to engage, in association, in collective bargaining on fundamental workplace issues,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Louis Lebel on behalf of the majority.

As Time for the Right explains;

This will give more power to unions and in turn hamper the free market of employment in Canada. The liberalism in the Canadian judicial system is here and should be stopped. Is this a sign of the times that this kind of system is here to stay. If you paid attention to this blog, you would know that this issue has already been touched on with the Book of the Month. Only time will tell if this will go away or will be here to stay!

Adam Daifallah adds;

The implications of this decision are potentially far-reaching, especially in areas of the public sector where there are quickly-changing needs due to technological advances, budget shortfalls, etc... specifically healthcare, which is where this case originated from. Kudos to Judge Deschamps for being the lone dissenting voice.

A tough day for libertarians, indeed.

Attracting private equity investments

This one'll get the statist a-hatin', I'll wager. Doesn't take much to set 'em off, especially in a province where the government-knows-best crowd is truly infixed, but it never ceases to be entertaining. Oh btw, great article Ellen!

Green taxes & political promises

Leader of the tax-and-spend Liberal Green party of Canada Elizabeth May has come up with a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs]: raise taxes.

The Greens mused over an environmental policy yesterday that would see them impose a 12 cent per litre tax on gasoline. May explains:

"Right now, the Green Party of Canada is the only Canadian political party prepared to state this obvious reality," May said yesterday. "We will use those carbon taxes to reduce taxes elsewhere."

Yeah sure. As a rule of thumb, I take it upon myself to be very apprehensive of any politician who raises taxes and then promises to reduce them. Right Dalton?

Anyway, after listening to the splashy promises above, not to mention, witnessing hundreds of politicians mislead the public, maybe it really is time for someone to introduce a Truth in Politics Act. Allow National Post columnist Andrew Coyne to explain:

It’s one I’ve offered before: a plan that would allow politicians to voluntarily assume legal liability for uttering false statements, much as people do in other walks of life, as when swearing out an affidavit, or posting a bond. The point is not to catch politicians out for every stray slip of the tongue. Indeed, it’s not even about punishing the dishonest, so much as rewarding the honest, by making it possible for the voters to trust in politicians’ honesty once again.

How would it work? Suppose there were a provision in the elections law allowing politicians to "opt in" to certain legal consequences with regard to a given public statement, should it later be found to be false. No need to prove fraud, or damages. Just that it was false. “In releasing my platform today,” a party leader might say, “I invoke Article 19 of the Elections Act.” As I say, it would be like swearing an oath. This is no more -- it is actually considerably less -- than the standard politicians expect of other professions, such as lawyers or corporate officers.

Not a bad idea. And with politicians, both provincial and federal, throwing around a smorgasbord of promises these days --- from tax cuts to moose fences --- I couldn't think of a better way to keep them in check. (Hat tip Gerry Nichols)

Statist Guile

A few things on this afternoon:

• The new plan for public education in New Brunswick was unveiled today by Premier Shawn Graham and Education Minister Kelly Lamrock titled When Kids Come First. I won't get into the details of the report, however, I will note that the first fundamental stage or goal "Every child will arrive at kindergarten ready to learn" struck me as curious. Why? Because, to me, this indicates that the state is interested in expanding its power and influence earlier in a child's life. And by doing this, people expect the state to assume more responsibility. Not to mention, bigger government requires more spending which will result in higher taxes. Higher taxes which erode the connection between family and the community, as well, a multitude of individuals who depend on the state and not each other for their well-being.

• Who said tax cuts weren't the right thing to do? According to a new CRA poll, NBers feel unsatisfied with the "sweeping tax hikes" implemented by the Liberals in their last budget. Voter satisfaction with the government and its policies has dropped 10 per cent since that ill-advised budget was dropped.

• And lastly, if it wasn't bad enough that the New Brunswick Liberals rescinded the tories' corporate tax cut and ripped up the energy rebate, since then they have used our tax-dollars unwisely on such schemes as corporate welfare programs for big business (Rogers), Liberal friendly firms and projects (Alan Graham et al. & Larry Jewett) and a fledgling textile industry (Atlantic Yarns). Not to mention, the bailing out of a Caisse populaire under criminal investigation without even consulting the people of New Brunswick. I know what you're thinking, it couldn't possibly get any worse, right? Guess again folks, the Liberals announced yesterday that they would divert $1 million of our hard earned tax-dollars over to the harness racing industry in the form of purse money. I am so shocked that I am at a loss for words. This is not exactly what I call investment on infrastructure which will benefit the greater good of society.

Furthermore, isn't this the same premier whose government pledged to look into "using tax breaks instead of grants and loans to attract companies to invest in the province, stimulate job creation and further the government's agenda of self-sufficiency"? So just where are the tax breaks? Where are the companies?

Change will breed more change, not cynicism

Ottawa Citizen: "Proponents of MMP in Ontario are probably too earnest in their conviction that the new system would cure what ails Ontario's democracy. Even so, it's clear that the current model of first-past-the-post breeds cynicism and apathy. Think about it: Majority governments are formed with less than half the popular vote, usually from barely more than half the eligible voters. Democracy can handle reasonable change, but I'm not sure it can easily withstand cynicism and apathy."

Corporate welfare creates a culture of dependency

Rogers to receive a $1.3 million dollar forgivable loan

In a statement earlier in the week, Premier Shawn Graham pledged to the citizens of New Brunswick that his government would look into "using tax breaks instead of grants and loans [corporate welfare] to attract companies to invest in the province, stimulate job creation and further the government's agenda of self-sufficiency."

Not a bad idea, if you were actually serious about doing it. Unfortunately, for NBers, it only took Mr. Graham's tax-and-spend regime just two days to back out of that promise. That has to be a record of some sort?

So who was the lucky corporate welfare recipient this time?

None other than Rogers communications Inc. That's right folks, Rogers communications, a giant multinational firm whose Q1 [first quarter] profits ending March 31, 2007 soared to a record high of $170-million, not to mention, its shares were up 68 cents, or 1.7%, to $40.97. Cap onto to that skyrocketing quarterly revenues to the tune of $2.3 billion and you hardly have a company that qualifies as the "Little guy" of the business world.

So what was the premier's justification for awarding this company with a $1.3 million forgivable loan?

"At the end of the day, we need to maintain a competitive advantage to other jurisdictions. Rogers could have easily chosen Ontario, British Columbia to locate, but they chose New Brunswick, and there are a number of reasons. The small investment today that the province of New Brunswick is making for training costs is one of those reasons," Graham said.

The usual excuse that subsidies are, naturally, good for the economy. But the premier left out one thing? He failed to mention that these corporate welfare grants usually end up in the hands of the province's top firms, like Rogers communications, whose market capitalization and revenue range in the billions of dollars, not the small and medium businesses [SMEs] or start-ups who have trouble accessing capital.

So not only is this practice unfair to small business, who are being taxed considerably high in this province, business subsidies also create an uneven playing field. In other words, capital is diverted through the corporate taxes of small and medium businesses [SMEs] to larger multinations that are doing just fine in a free market. So taxpayers and small business end up footing the bill when these unnecessary subsidies are handed out.

So if you're a business, firm or start-up looking to invest in a region where taxes are low, the economic climate is competitive and where free market principles rule the day, you had best consider bypassing New Brunswick, especially since there is good reason to believe that our government will continue with its policies of high taxes and corporate welfare despite the fact that most other regions are looking to do the exact opposite.

Related posts: Spinning Yarn of Corporate Welfare