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
15 Comments:
Excellent blog, and very good content, although the moderation is not necessary and curiously showed up when ideological differences were posted:)
You can add in far more than that. How about the lack of legislation that let Rogers bring in 200 quebecers to lay cable because apparantly no New Brunswickers knew how.
For those looking for an 'even playing field', the fact is that New Brunswick is STILL marginalized by Quebec and the only recourse is to equal the playing field by disallowing quebecers to work on New Brunswick projects. Look at Charles coverage of the legislature where he says all the security are quebecers (don't know if its true), not to mention the rogers example above and the little known forestry sector which also brings in quebecers to work in the forests.
And all this in a province where people gripe about the high unemployment rates.
For Rogers you can also mention the fact that they have a guaranteed protected market. It is very difficult to set up a competing station, the only people who have managed it is St. Andrews.
The guy at Acadie 'television' is now trying to get funding for his television station, this is pretty unfair competition for him, since Rogers has a presence in most of New Brunswick.
Unlike you I don't mind seeing government investment, but it could easily go to acadie television which is a grassroots movement to foster acadian culture, not just make fun of it with acadieman. Rogers is well known for trying to stifle competition, and its well known that the company has been trying to run by 'volunteers'.
Unlike you I don't mind seeing government investment, but it could easily go to acadie television which is a grassroots movement to foster acadian culture, not just make fun of it with acadieman.
Don't know what that means? Who's this acadieman you speak of?
As for government investment, the posters who frequent this blog on a regualr basis know where I stand as it is riddled throughout the posts already on here --- and I haven't even been around that long?
Let me explain. Nowhere did I say that I was totally against investment, on the contrary, tax dollars should be directed to purposes that offer the largest societal benefits such infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, disabled access, etc.) and services (national defense, border guards, security, policing, etc.) So when subsidies are placed up against the above priorities, forgivable loans for business should not even rank.
anonymous 4:42 pm:
Interesting COMMENT about moderation, since you yourself choose to hide behind a vail of anonymity. The hypocricy of the internet.
Interesting comment about hypocrisy and posting anonymously from a guy posting anonymously. Even this website is posted anonymously. All that was mentioned is that the moderation is not necessary. It makes debate that much harder, but its his blog, he can do what he wants.
Not sure what you two anonymous posters are trying to get at with this conversation? Assuming there are two of you and not just one person posting under a different (but exactly the same) anonymous handle.
All I know is that I post under a pseudonym and go by the handle of "nb taxpayer". Much like spinks and many other bloggers who post comments and can be traced back to their own blogspot. Much different than a completely anonymous posters who doesn't even link to a blog, no?
Anyway, we are just arguing semantics here, and it's funny because it always seem to be the anonymous posters who complain the most. Like I always say, this is my blog, if you don't like it you can always start your own or go bother someone else.
Moderation's not my thing (yet) but I can certainly understand the desire to do so. There's a respectful difference of opinion and then there's well let's call it what it is...being rude. Mike/anon or whatever he wants to call himself today knows what I speak of. You're debating and discussing mike when you stick with a consistent name so that others can also have a decent respectful discussion with you. When you keep changing it you're trolling. Sure I know your writing style well enough that you could call yourself Queen Elizabeth if you wanted but few others would. The lack of respect you have for others is clear when you consistently change your name to attempt to confuse either intentionally or unintentionally . Disagree all you want and if nbtaxpayer allows it you can do what you want but you're being called on it.
I posted the first comment but just clicked the wrong circle by accident. Since my moniker is known here I figured the comment to be self evident. I meant that I favour forgiveable loans as well. I think the government loan to the scientist in Sackville is just fine, but wish the government would get on the ball to ensure that taxpayers can recoup their losses if their discovery strikes big.
I also think the Acadian television station is a worthy project. I agree about Rogers for all the reasons you mention, that they have enough money and they stifle innovation and competition and question whether it will turn out to be a good investment. They do a far worse job at local television than Fundy cable did with half the money.
Acadieman is a television show on Rogers, at least in the moncton area and you can go to acadieman.com to buy the DVD. I'm not badmouthing it, it is a cultural project I fully support, however, by the nature of their very license Rogers does little stuff like that. Technically, it is only because this character was already a cultural icon in Moncton that it was turned into a show. Apart from that I don't know of any Rogers shows that are dramas or even animations even though there are several animation companies in the province that no doubt would love the exposure. Rogers could be filming even kids plays in schools and stuff like that with little expense, but instead is hardly even on the air and repeats the same shows over and over.
Just in concluding, I'd have to say the frequent claims of 'don't like it don't come' are unfortunately too missive. The comments section are often as worthwhile as the blog itself. It's not like there is a huge market out there for political debate, and it goes without saying that if people don't like it they won't be back.
It always depends what a person wants with a blog, if shouting in the wilderness is a blessing then that's one thing, however, a blogger can only post so much unless they have 24 hours a day.
You've got good blogs about good issues that don't get a lot of play, however, you far too easily take offense and contention with things that aren't even meant to be so.
You can look at people like Spinks who has been doing it for awhile and even Charles, who have learned how to handle the comments section. It should be as welcoming a place as is possible.
Commentors aren't under the same expectations as blog owners. As a blogger I assume you want as many people to see your blog as possible. So in that way it is like a business and commentors can help 'sell' your ideas to the public. If 'we' don't feel welcome, it is harder for you.
You are definitely picking up where NBPolitico left off, and hopefully will keep at it. As Spinks says, it 'may' become the place people talk about. But its a rookie mistake to be belligerent to commentors. We commentors can be as belligerent as we want, we gain little from people coming here and avoiding our websites. That's just some free advice, take it for what its worth.
I wonder how many innovative small business' could have been funded by that 1.3 million.
What a screwed system. It is already far too easy for a large corporation to push the little guy out of the market but our governments further skew the system in favor of billion dollar companies.
When government has the ability to unnaturally favor one player in the market over another, then we the consumer pay, one way or another for the use of that power and influence.
Spinks: Thx for that my friend. It's good to see that I'm not the only one who dislikes this persons blog conduct.
Even though I'm passionate myself, I'm not about to make this blog become a venue for people who want throw daily flames at eachother. That's not why I started this blog.
Not to mention, people have a range of views and should be able to express them without being personally attacked. And as I see from your comment spinks, the same is true on your blog when it comes to this individual, although for some reason this person doesn't seem to think they are a problem.
I have a strict code of FAQs that I like to abide by and one important rule is that commenters maintain a reasonable level of civility when posting. 99% of the people who come here respect that rule, although it only takes 1 person to think that the rules don't apply to them; thus, spoiling it all for the rest of us.
And let's just say that I would rather cater to the individuals who respect the rules rather than have a dead blog with no debate and one belligerent commenter.
zip: I couldn't have said it better myself. And you're right, government should not favour one company over the other as anytime you're in the business of picking winners, there ends up twice or three times as many losers. They should let the market decide.
A market, I might add, that Rogers communications was doing just fine in.
You can look at people like Spinks who has been doing it for awhile and even Charles, who have learned how to handle the comments section. It should be as welcoming a place as is possible.
Spinks is the best example of how a comments section on a blog should be managed. (NB politico, NB politics, Al Bruce and To Be Announced a close second)
However, I'm not certain the latter comparison holds as Mr. Leblanc has been know (in the past)to leave out perfectly civil criticisms of his blog post because they weaken his opinion. However, he is getting a little better at it. And it's his blog, so he can run it as he pleases.
Personal blogs aside, I think the biggest problem for the NB blogging community is the oversaturation of anonymous posters with poor intentions.
Take a look at David Campbell and Charles Leblanc's blogs as an example. These guys have been blogging for well over two years now and over 90% (conservative figure) of their posters are individuals who don't even blog or claim anonymity.
I think a trait of a successful blogger is the diverse amount posters one can attract to his/her site, not to mention, the amount of traffic. Though it shouldn't be your main goal as it's all about expression.
However, if you go to any other province where bloggers are leaving comments, you will notice that at least fifty per cent of the posters (in a comments section) are under an actual name or pseoudonym which links back to their blog. This happens on spinks site all the time.
Let's go back to David Campbell's blog again, his blogs probably have the most anonymous posters. One time someone ask him why his blog had so many anonymous posters? He replied by saying there are alot of government officials and important people who don't want to reveal their identity and risk being exposed publically. Fair enough.
But explain to me this, if these so-called anonymous posters are too important to reveal their identities, then why did Jacques Poitras (sp?), Robert Jones and many MLAs choose to post comments under their real names in the comments section of "Spink About It"? Are they not important?
IMHO, comments sections like DC are ruled by trolls, not anonymous MLAs or MPs. Trying to make us believe the latter is testing our intelligence.
So to make a long story short, I don't want this blog (comments section) to follow in the footsteps of blogs like Dave Campbell and Charles Leblanc. Which is why I emphasize civility and encourage a diverse amount of posters (as much as possible) under a real name or pseudonym, like spinks does. I'm in this for the long haul and not for short term gratification. So if losing one belligerent commenter will encourage more civil ones to this blog, then so be it.
If you don't like it, then I suggest you go back to bothering Dave Campbell on a regular basis. He doesn't seem to mind.
For those uncertain about the rules, click the link below:
Blog FAQs
When was the last time you when on Campbell blog. He moderate his comment section. So he was fed up by it :)
Moderating comments doesn't mean that you aren't publishing comments, paulin. It just means that if an individual uses profanity or disrespectful language, their comments will not be posted.
I haven't had to delete one comment yet. ;-)
He's publishing but look at comment before publishing them like you do. So he's moderating.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home