CBC afraid to be accountable?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

hahahahahaha!!!!!

Its true Hal.
SUNCOR was found to be the biggest abuser of tax breaks... to the tune of IIRC....4 billion last year.

The tax breaks companies recieve are conditional and many companies...including SUNCOR failed to honour their commitments.

It was widely reported a few months ago.

But perhaps not on the corporate sponsored and controlled "news" that some folks prefer.

[longhead]

that might take some explaining PESKY,keep in mind a lot of us are not on the dope

[hal53]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Its true Hal.
SUNCOR was found to be the biggest abuser of tax breaks... to the tune of IIRC....4 billion last year.

The tax breaks companies recieve are conditional and many companies...including SUNCOR failed to honour their commitments.

It was widely reported a few months ago.

But perhaps not on the corporate sponsored and controlled "news" that some folks prefer.

yup, you're right , it was "widely" reported....thanks for sharing that, still like to hear how utilizing 4B, in tax breaks, that some people think havent been fulfilled quickly enough, adds up to 180 billion???

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

yup, you're right , it was "widely" reported....thanks for sharing that, still like to hear how utilizing 4B, in tax breaks, that some people think havent been fulfilled quickly enough, adds up to 180 billion???

That was Suncor alone and the study was done over a couple years I believe.

The tax breaks were conditional upon companies meeting certain requirements.
The companies did not.... it has nothing to do with fast enough.... they never even initiated action.
It really is a matter of some companies acting with inpunity and simply being non-compliant.

Rather than turn those tax break dollars into training or jobs as required... they directly funneled them into and counted them as .... profit.

Some people might call that fraud.

Perhaps the point to be taken from this is that while we might believe the CBC (for instance) is conspiring and greedy, bias, untrustworthy, and screwing tax payers.... we also need to recognize that the same can be said for their most vocal opponents.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by pesky672

That was Suncor alone and the study was done over a couple years I believe.

The tax breaks were conditional upon companies meeting certain requirements.
The companies did not.... it has nothing to do with fast enough.... they never even initiated action.
It really is matter of some companies acting with inpunity and simply being non-compliant.

Rather than turn those tax break dollars into training or jobs as required... they directly funneled them into and counted them as .... profit.

Some people might call that fraud.

profit??...really???...be careful what you say on a public forum, when you know not what you speak of, there are lots of hungry Lawyers around.....

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

profit??...really???...be careful what you say on a public forum, when you know not what you speak of, there are lots of hungry Lawyers around.....

Is that a threat?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Is that a threat?

from me???...lol, you're too wound up Pesky, calm down....Sheesh!!!!!!

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

from me???...lol, you're too wound up Pesky, calm down....Sheesh!!!!!!

Nope.

Just wondering.
I just related what I recalled from the news.


Here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01...n_1231089.html

"The corporate tax cuts that were supposed to create new jobs have instead allowed companies to hoard cash, pay out larger dividends to shareholders and beef up executive salaries, says a report from the Canadian Labour Congress."


.... sounds like profits to me....

And I'm not wound up Hal... just wondering if that was a shot across the bow or not..... no biggie

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Choice is exactly why I am not suggesting that.
Choice is exactly why the CBC is still important to many Canadians.

Yes. Exactly why the CBC should not be opposed to Sun, or any other applicant capable of meeting the criteria, having equal access to the airwaves, instead of spending my tax money opposing any competition. And exactly why those who want it to continue should put their own viewership and money where their mouths are (?). That is probably a pipe dream, since the vast majority of its rabid supporters are much better at loudly shouting down all opposing views than actively, and financially, supporting their champions, either in this milieu or in the purely political one.
I would, if given the choice to pick only the channels I want to have access to, keep the CBC (if only for the joy of watching Judy Rebeck turn bright purple with rage at Ezra Levant's comments?).
No one has yet, though, answered the initial question of why, if the CBC continues as a taxpayer subsidized entity, that they should not be fully accountable, labor-wise or otherwise, to the people who pay the bills.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Nope.

Just wondering.
I just related what I recalled from the news.


Here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01...n_1231089.html

"The corporate tax cuts that were supposed to create new jobs have instead allowed companies to hoard cash, pay out larger dividends to shareholders and beef up executive salaries, says a report from the Canadian Labour Congress."


.... sounds like profits to me....

And I'm not wound up Hal... just wondering if that was a shot across the bow or not..... no biggie

the CLC and Huffington post are never wrong (?)...just saying, in a round about way accusing a big company of 4 B fraud on a public forum, is a good way to get a phone call, letter that you may not like. You don't know the details of the tax break, and neither do I, but if it was contingent on hiring more workers, I think if you could tell the guys up there how/where to find more that were willing to be trained and work, you would be their friend.......

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

the CLC and Huffington post are never wrong (?)...just saying, in a round about way accusing a big company of 4 B fraud on a public forum, is a good way to get a phone call, letter that you may not like. You don't know the details of the tax break, and neither do I, but if it was contingent on hiring more workers, I think if you could tell the guys up there how/where to find more that were willing to be trained and work, you would be their friend.......

Give me a break Hal... you asked and I quickly dug up an article the posted the first one that popped up.
Don't tell me that you are thirsty then complain about my brand of beer...

I'm sure that others also reported on it and that the numbers could be confirmed etc.... otherwise we'd be talking about the mother of all lawsuits right now.

What is Suncors response to this... or any of them for that matter?

I haven't heard or seen that anywhere.

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Choice is exactly why I am not suggesting that.
Choice is exactly why the CBC is still important to many Canadians.

Agreed, choice is always a good thing but the CBC refuses to open up there books therefore they should be defunded.

If they want to act like a private Corp. then maybe we should treat them as such.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by hal53

hahahahahaha!!!!!

google it, and my numbers are lower than what is fact,, ask your accountant.
Actually I'll copy paste articles from both hard right and left journals. Reporting of stats (access to information has been denied since 2006).

If it serves a fuction, that's fine, but if it goes directly to the piggy bank I'm concerned.

[blackpheasant]

Canadian Banks & Ins. companies subsidized for over $400 billion in 2009 and yet there profits are far greater than the so called "big oil" that everyone loves to hate.

[Gust]

Sorry not just O&G but still good reading,, I'll post a few more;
From 2008
Canadian tab for corporate welfare exceeds $180 billion, not including $4 billion for automakers announced Saturday

While John Maynard Keynes – the ghost of economics past – haunts central planners and central bankers caught in the grip of stimulus mania, a new Fraser Institute report reveals that Canadian taxpayers have already spent $182 billion on corporate welfare between 1994 and 2006 – and they’re not getting much for their money.

$185 billion works out to $13,639 per taxpayer over that twelve-year period or $1,291 per taxpayer in 2006 alone.

“While corporate begging has become even more blatant this year, the fundamental truth has not changed. Business subsidies, bailouts, or loans are all forms of corporate welfare that transfer tax dollars and employment from healthy businesses to risky businesses,” said Mark Milke, author of the report, Corporate Welfare: Now a $182 Billion Addiction. “Government intervention only delays the day of reckoning and often at the expense of other businesses and a healthy industry and economy.”

With $4 billion in government loans committed on Saturday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to the auto industry, Milke points out that since 2004 the federal and Ontario governments together gave $752 million to the automotive industry, including $200 million for Ford, $200 million for GM, and $125 million for Toyota. Will additional billions in corporate welfare really make a difference this time?

"Even though research does not support claims that corporate welfare contributes to widespread economic growth, governments continue to pursue these policies because they want to be seen to be doing something,” Milke said. “By subsidizing or bailing out failing businesses, politicians can tell voters they are saving jobs, or they can appeal to voters with interests in specific industries.”

Here are some highlights from Corporate Welfare: Now a $182 Billion Addiction:

• Between 1994 and 2006, the last year for which statistics are available, Canada’s federal, provincial, and local governments spent $182.4 billion on subsidies to business.

• In 2006 alone, Canada’s federal, provincial, and local governments spent $19.3 billion on corporate welfare, almost double the 1995 figure of $10.3 billion.

• The total corporate welfare bill (federal, provincial, and municipal) has ranged from a low of $9.9 billion in 1996 to a high of almost $20 billion in 2005. In 2006, it amounted to $19.3 billion.

• The cost to each taxpayer who paid income tax in 2006 was $1,291, which was 38% higher than the 1995 figure of $934.

• Over 12 years, the total cost per tax filer who paid tax amounted to $13,639 per person (all figures adjusted for inflation to 2008 dollars).

• Between 1994 and 2006, provincial governments spent $98.5 billion on corporate welfare, while the federal government spent $61.4 billion and municipal governments spent $22.5 billion.

• Among provincial governments, the province which disburses the most amount of public money to corporations is Quebec, with over $5.4 billion in corporate welfare in 2006. Quebec was followed by Ontario at $2.4 billion and Alberta at almost $1.5 billion, with British Columbia fourth at just under $950 million.

“With multiple companies lining up around the world for government-financed grants, loans and loan guarantees, bailouts for one company in trouble will merely make it more difficult for other healthy competitors in a tough economic environment,” Milke said.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on December 21, 2008

[Gust]

Op-Ed: Corporate Welfare outpaces Social Welfare in Canada
By Daniel Lick
Nov 21, 2011 in Politics
Although accurate statistics are difficult to find, what stands out from any accounting of government spending over the last decade is that expenditures on corporate welfare are almost twice that of expenditures on social welfare.

Corporate welfare costs approximately 15.6 billion a year while social welfare costs around 8 billion a year.

Corporate welfare statistics are based on a 13 year assessment of business subsidies. Between 1994 and 2007, the federal government gave away 66.6 billion, the provinces - 110.3 billion, and municipalities - 25.8 billion, for a total of 203 billion, or 15.6 billion dollars a year.

That’s almost half of Canada's 500 billion national debt

Social welfare was calculated by the amount dispensed, the same way that corporate welfare was calculated. Based on the 2008-09 year, non-disabled recipients are being provided with a total of 8 billion dollars a year.

Giving wheelbarrows of cash away to corporations is usually justified by by the long discredited “trickle down” theory or vague references to “job creation.” In reality it produces few, if any, jobs and goes mostly to executive bonuses, where it is socked away in various securities and offshore bank accounts.

Money spent on social welfare, however, has an immediate payback.
According to the National Council of Welfare, if 12.6 billion had been spent to raise every Canadian above the poverty line, it would have resulted in a saving of almost 24 billion dollars.

It is important that Canadians are aware of one of our most expensive spending patterns—paying top-dollar on temporary fixes for the problems that grow out of poverty,” said Dr. John Rook, Chair of the Council.

Indirect costs drive up the cost of poverty. Stable housing costs less than shelter, ambulance, police, hospital and other bills resulting from homelessness. Similarly, basic medicine costs far less than emergency wards, where people end up when they can’t afford medicine. This pattern can be found in the justice system, education, employment, business and other areas.

In other words, social welfare spending actually results in an overall saving of taxpayer dollars; what's spent with one hand returns doubled to the other, in the form of decreased costs for health care, education, unemployment insurance, and policing.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/314815#ixzz2UMwUVAas

[Gust]

The best article I think

FP Comment
Special to Financial Post | 11/12/28 10:30 PM ET
When subsidies create jobs, others are lost

By Mark Milke


In a year where Ontario predicts a $16.3-billion deficit, an obvious target for budget cuts should be corporate welfare. Since 1991-92 and until 2008-09, Ontario governments of every political stripe have transferred $27.7-billion in tax dollars to businesses.

That figure would be even higher had more recent, recession-era statistics been available. In the last year alone for which data is available from Statistics Canada (fiscal 2009), Ontario’s corporate-welfare bill was $2.7-billion.

From manufacturing to the auto sector to craft breweries, no business was too large or too small to receive taxpayer cash courtesy of Queen’s Park. But that generosity came with a price tag. For any Ontarian who paid provincial income tax in 2008, the cost of corporate welfare was $424.

The Ontario government is upfront about this wasteful and unproductive bit of spending. In the provincial government’s most recent budget, the government underscored how the Next Generation of Jobs Fund has spent $714-million on 33 projects. The government also noted that between 2005 and 2010, the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Strategy made “loan commitments of more than $160-million.” Another note claimed the Strategic Jobs and Investment Fund funded more than $52.4-million in grants and $31-million in loans.

Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, Brad Duguid, told the media recently that such spending is a necessity when Ontario bids against the United States and Europe for industry. Duguid argued that without it, Ontario would be “completely unarmed” in competition with the rest of the world. In particular, startup businesses need “a little bit of help,” said Duguid.

Nonsense. Ontario has been lowering corporate tax rates. That already helps make it competitive with other jurisdictions. Besides, the European Union has 500 million people and the United States has 312 million. If those jurisdictions attempt to outbid Canada and our 34 million (or Ontario’s 13.4 million) for some sector or company, it’s relatively easy to do. That imbalance is also why free trade agreements between provinces and countries that cut down on subsidies are useful and ought to be pursued with vigour.

As for the startup argument, much corporate welfare ends up with big companies, but whenever governments pick winners and losers, they risk either subsidizing the latter to no effect and at great cost to taxpayers, or helping one business at the expense of another startup company and putting the non-subsidized one out of business. That hardly counts as an overall net gain in jobs.

That’s why economists who look at the jobs justification find it flawed. For example, Timothy Bartik found that extra job growth in one locale due to business subsidies comes, in part, at the expense of reduced job growth in another region. Another economist, Margaret Dewar, found that programs aimed at specific distressed geographic regions show “almost no effects on the growth of these areas.”

Economist Terry Buss found that governments, in their corporate-welfare justifications, routinely ignore what’s called the “substitution effect.” That’s where tax dollars and jobs are merely transferred from healthier businesses to those in pursuit of taxpayer cash. Buss concluded that no new economic activity or jobs were created from corporate welfare when the wider geographic area was considered.

A perfect example of this happened in Quebec in the 1980s, when the federal government funnelled tax dollars to pay for the construction of a new fish processing plant at a cost of $2.2-million with the justification of 250 new jobs. However, in a later review, the federal Auditor-General noted that a nearby existing fish-processing facility soon shut down, with job losses equivalent to those “created” by the newly subsidized plant.

Corporate welfare is an expensive shell game that has occurred under Ontario’s NDP, Tory and Liberal governments. The McGuinty government’s policy of a general low tax rate is smart, neutral policy that cannot fairly be considered a subsidy. The Ontario government should stick to low business tax rates and kill off business subsidies.

Financial Post
Mark Milke is a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and author of its new study, Ontario’s Corporate Welfare Bill: $27.7-billion.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Choice is exactly why I am not suggesting that.
Choice is exactly why the CBC is still important to many Canadians.

Then let those "Many Canadians" support cbc. That would be fair.

[wolfriver]

They would be circling the bowl if the "many" were paying the tab.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Then let those "Many Canadians" support cbc. That would be fair.

Ummmm like it or not...we're all in this together.
Thats why I have to tolerate my tax dollars being spent to protect a language that I do not speak.

In all fairness... I think that it is time the CBC evolves and cuts the apron strings a bit as well.

I would like to see funding cut for the televised portion but left in place for radio.
CBC radio is often the only news of home you can get when you travel here or internationally.
The local channels aren't broadcasting to the whole planet and I think that it is important that we maintain that capability.

[silver]

Originally Posted by pesky672

CBC radio is often the only news of home you can get when you travel here or internationally.
The local channels aren't broadcasting to the whole planet and I think that it is important that we maintain that capability.

You would be amazed at what you can find out there, there is this thing called the internet.

[Unregistered user]

It is wrong that cbc "competes" against private companies with our tax dollars. Governments should not be in the business of funding business of any kind.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by silver

You would be amazed at what you can find out there, there is this thing called the internet.

Really?
I never has access to that in most of the places I went and likely still wouldn't ... a radio on the other hand.... I could get to.

We used to be able to tune in to it even with the military sets.

Aside from that there are still places in this country where that is not possible or at least as reliable plain old as radio.

[silver]

Originally Posted by pesky672

Really?
I never has access to that in most of the places I went and likely still wouldn't ... a radio on the other hand.... I could get to.

We used to be able to tune in to it even with the military sets.

Aside from that there are still places in this country where that is not possible or at least as reliable plain old as radio.

I have been places that decent radio was hard to get.

So would you like to tell us where and when you could get radio but not internet and which one is your carrier?

[blackpheasant]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/05/24...shut-up-pay-up