Who knew? Turns out the Harper government was actually terrific for wage growth

[Ryan Strome]

Cast your mind back to the dark days of 2014 and 2015, before Sunny Ways. The last days of the Stephen Harper government. The leader holed up in his Centre Block crypt, lonely and accursed, like some latter-day Richard III, though with better hair and no hump. The country wallowing in recession and despond, longing for tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure spending and federal deficits to save it. The people wailing for cool, enlightened leadership with brashly striped socks. 

 

Well, wait a second. Stop tape. Statistics Canada has just released “High-income trends among Canadian tax filers,” its annual contribution to class warfare in Canada. Turns out things weren’t as gloomy in 2015 as we all thought or as Justin Trudeau kept saying. From 2014 to 2015, StatCan tells us, “The real average income of all tax filers rose 2.6 per cent.” That was the largest yearly increase since 2005–06. Stephen, we hardly knew ye!

 

Even better, “the bottom 50 per cent of tax filers” — i.e., those struggling to get into the middle class — “saw a 3.4 per cent increase in average total income, compared with a 2.3 per cent gain for the top half.” Just to emphasize: That’s a real, after-inflation increase. To be fair, it’s not clear it’s an after-tax gain, because these numbers are for “total income,” which covers all forms of income, including cheques and refundable tax credits from governments, but doesn’t deduct any income taxes. (You might call it “election-platform data”: all benefits, no taxes.) In theory, the whole gain could have been taxed away. And there may be something to that so far as the top half of the distribution is concerned. But for the bottom 50 per cent, it seems unlikely. No government raises income taxes at the low end these days. (Other taxes, including payroll taxes, are a different matter.) 

 

 

I’m betting this good news of “growth throughout the income distribution” as StatCan puts it, won’t be how this new data gets reported. Reporters are more likely to emphasize class conflict, which in fact StatCan does too, with its headline of “Top 1 per cent share of total income rises nearly 1 per cent.” See? We knew it: Harper really was a villain. Except that, oops, the top one per cent’s 2015 share of total income, 11.2 per cent, was still 0.9 points below its peak of 12.1 per cent in 2006, following 13 years of Liberal rule.  

CBC’s new four-headed version of The National seems to enjoy following up on its … I was going to say “news stories” but most are really ideology stories … with PowerPoint slides providing an interesting little factoid showing how far behind more enlightened realms Canada is on various planks in the progressive agenda. I wonder if they’ll make one for this story emphasizing the interesting tidbit that (from StatCan, again), “This was the first increase in the share of total income going to the top 1 per cent since 2006.” Got that? The first increase in the top one per cent’s share in a decade. Not exactly the impression you’d have gotten by following the feverish debate on inequality in this country’s media over the last few years. As the debate gets more and more extreme, the data get more and more moderate. Remind you of any other big policy issue? 

 

Other data points that may not make the CBC cut: 

– Female tax filers keep moving into the top one per cent. They now represent 23.2 per cent of that group, up 1.5 points from 2014. Almost 63,000 Canadian women earned the $234,700 you needed to be in the top one per cent of earners in 2015.

– The share of income tax shouldered by the one per cent rose again, to 22.2 per cent of all income taxes. To emphasize: They had 10.3 per cent of income and paid 22.2 per cent of income taxes. And this was before the Trudeau government raised top tax rates in the name of fairness, a tax share twice that of your income share and 22 times your population share being deemed not fair enough.

Will the rise in the top one per cent’s share of income be sustainable? Maybe not. It was the result of an unusually big increase in dividend income. Overall for the year, such income rose from $64 billion in 2014 to $77 billion in 2015 before falling back to $70 billion in 2016. Corporate profits were good in 2015. But profits fluctuate so that may not be so repeatable. And there may have been greater corporate payouts so as to beat tax increases that either already were, or people could reasonably have anticipated would be, on their way in 2016. That’s a one-time effect, unless governments keep playing the tax-raising game, which I suspect some will use these new data to justify doing.

 

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-turns-out-the-harper-government-was-actually-terrific-for-wage-growth/amp

 

Who knew ?

[Violator]

Conservative governments generally are better for economies.but usually cut social services which pisses of the minority who are always more vocal.

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Violator said:

Conservative governments generally are better for economies.but usually cut social services which pisses of the minority who are always more vocal.

Trudeaus whole campaign is proven to pretty much be all fabricated nonsense. Nice hair though..

[Violator]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Trudeaus whole campaign is proven to pretty much be all fabricated nonsense. Nice hair though..

You need a shake up in government avery once in a while.Trudeau i no where near as bad as Trump politically but worse economically.

[darinbadershouldamadeit]

c'mon guys, give fancy socks a chance, the Budget is bound to balance itself one day...

[RRypien37]

As the saying goes "You don't know what you have until its gone". 

[samurai]

4 hours ago, Violator said:

Conservative governments generally are better for economies.but usually cut social services which pisses of the minority who are always more vocal.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.   

[ice orca]

3 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

As the saying goes "You don't know what you have until its gone". 

It was a big stinking ass..and i am glad it's gone.

[Tigs]

7 hours ago, Violator said:

Conservative governments generally are better for economies.but usually cut social services which pisses of the minority who are always more vocal.

 

1 hour ago, ice orca said:

It was a big stinking ass..and i am glad it's gone.

[Ghostsof1915]

He also closed veteran service offices, didn't provide basic maintenance for military bases. Signed us on F-35's (that we are now looking for other options).

We lost food inspectors, environment officers. There has been no incentives to expand our industry into renewable energy, which is growing worldwide. 

No incentives to try to expand into diversifying our economy. Just stick to the 19th century and exploit our resources until we don't have any left. 

 

Good riddance. 

 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

So...one year with a solid jump vs almost a decade of stagnation, increased prices, lost jobs, hyper low inflation, budget deficits, closed offices increased fees etc etc etc etc etc

 

It was time for the boy to go.  As evidenced by his now almost BILLION dollar Phoenix boondoggle which the Liberals are helping keep alive until they announced it's termination on Wednesday.

 

People can continue to nit pick small minor stats out of the entire picture but overall Harper did very little good for this country on the world stage or internally.

 

Who knew?

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

He also closed veteran service offices, didn't provide basic maintenance for military bases. Signed us on F-35's (that we are now looking for other options).

We lost food inspectors, environment officers. There has been no incentives to expand our industry into renewable energy, which is growing worldwide. 

No incentives to try to expand into diversifying our economy. Just stick to the 19th century and exploit our resources until we don't have any left. 

 

Good riddance. 

 

 

 

 

No he didn't, the Chretien government did.

 

Btw you will likely be disappointed as the military wants that jet. 

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

No he didn't, the Chretien government did.

 

Btw you will likely be disappointed as the military wants that jet. 

No Chretien didn't.

 

He signed us in to the R&D program that would possible see us purchase this fighter jet but also allowed us to enjoy the jobs and technology afforded from the creation of it.  He never once signed a piece of paper with intent to purchase.

 

We've done this already.  Like a dozen times.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Warhippy said:

So...one year with a solid jump vs almost a decade of stagnation, increased prices, lost jobs, hyper low inflation, budget deficits, closed offices increased fees etc etc etc etc etc

 

It was time for the boy to go.  As evidenced by his now almost BILLION dollar Phoenix boondoggle which the Liberals are helping keep alive until they announced it's termination on Wednesday.

 

People can continue to nit pick small minor stats out of the entire picture but overall Harper did very little good for this country on the world stage or internally.

 

Who knew?

that pesky worst recession in 70 years may have played a role. Well at least we were the envy of the g7 during that time. As for lost jobs and price increase I'm not sure I follow. Again that pesky recession. It's like when the left wants to defend Rae in Ontario they point out a recession, I'm not sure I agree as the ndp hasn't governed in Ontario since.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No Chretien didn't.

 

He signed us in to the R&D program that would possible see us purchase this fighter jet but also allowed us to enjoy the jobs and technology afforded from the creation of it.  He never once signed a piece of paper with intent to purchase.

 

We've done this already.  Like a dozen times.

You don't invest in development of a jet without buying it. The liberals and the Canadian military were purchasing this jet. That's fine if you don't like the jet but blaming the Harper government is ridiculous.

 

Btw you see the cost of 18 super hornets? Lmao what an expensive 4th generation sole-sourced fighter jet.

[Warhippy]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

that pesky worst recession in 70 years may have played a role. Well at least we were the envy of the g7 during that time. As for lost jobs and price increase I'm not sure I follow. Again that pesky recession. It's like when the left wants to defend Rae in Ontario they point out a recession, I'm not sure I agree as the ndp hasn't governed in Ontario since.

The pesky recession he swore wasn't coming, the one he nearly sunk us with by trying to privatize the banking industry and mirror that ugly 40+ year amortization scam the americans were doing that fueled the sub prime disaster.

 

As for lost jobs I am sure you do follow.  Unless all of that is the fault of the NDP in Alberta and at no point in time did the Harper government rig the TFW rules which saw thousands of people thrown out of work in place of foreign help at lower wages.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/its-getting-harder-for-harper-to-brag-about-his-record-on-jobs/

 

https://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05/18/news/harper-worst-prime-minister-history

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-jobs-analysis-1.3254371

 

http://rabble.ca/news/harper-government-pushed-financial-deregulation

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jim-flaherty-vs-mortgage-amortization/

 

I've stated numerous times.  I grew up very Conservative.  But Harper pushed not only myself but my parents towards independents and outside of party politics for good reason.  

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

The pesky recession he swore wasn't coming, the one he nearly sunk us with by trying to privatize the banking industry and mirror that ugly 40+ year amortization scam the americans were doing that fueled the sub prime disaster.

 

As for lost jobs I am sure you do follow.  Unless all of that is the fault of the NDP in Alberta and at no point in time did the Harper government rig the TFW rules which saw thousands of people thrown out of work in place of foreign help at lower wages.

 

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/its-getting-harder-for-harper-to-brag-about-his-record-on-jobs/

 

https://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/05/18/news/harper-worst-prime-minister-history

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-jobs-analysis-1.3254371

 

http://rabble.ca/news/harper-government-pushed-financial-deregulation

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jim-flaherty-vs-mortgage-amortization/

 

I've stated numerous times.  I grew up very Conservative.  But Harper pushed not only myself but my parents towards independents and outside of party politics for good reason.  

You said lost jobs during his 10 years. What I bolded doesn't make sense, the ndp came to power in 2015 and the Conservatives lost in 2015. 

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You don't invest in development of a jet without buying it. The liberals and the Canadian military were purchasing this jet. That's fine if you don't like the jet but blaming the Harper government is ridiculous.

 

Btw you see the cost of 18 super hornets? Lmao what an expensive 4th generation sole-sourced fighter jet.

Actually you do.  Under the provisions in not only NAFTA but also NATO any country investing in a joint program is entitled to the economic spin offs and benefits as well as jobs from ensuing development by being able to bid on projects and aspects of the development.

 

But at no point in time was it an intent or obligation to purchase

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/qa-all-you-need-to-know-before-the-f-35-debate-hits-parliament

 

Why did Canada become involved?
Jean Chretien’s Liberal government recognized in 1997 that Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets were approaching the end of their lives. By signing on to the U.S.-led project then and agreeing to continue participating in 2002, it ensured Canada would be able to influence the design while making Canadian companies eligible for contracts. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report said that “securing industrial benefits for Canadian companies continued to be a driving motivation for participation” in 2002

 

What were the implications of those two decisions?
The Chretien government cut a cheque for $10.6-million in 1997. It wrote another for $100-million in 2002 and disbursed $50-million to help Canadian companies involved in the project. Neither decision obligated Canada to purchase any F-35s, but it did allow Canadian companies to bid on contracts.

[Warhippy]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

You said lost jobs during his 10 years. What I bolded doesn't make sense, the ndp came to power in 2015 and the Conservatives lost in 2015. 

The fallacy that the NDP in Alberta cost hundreds of millions of people jobs, babies were eaten, gay kids roamed the streets without their parents knowing their orientation and that the carbon tax was so crippling it forced people to spend almost $4 to $10 a month extra on heating.

 

Come on man get with the times

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Actually you do.  Under the provisions in not only NAFTA but also NATO any country investing in a joint program is entitled to the economic spin offs and benefits as well as jobs from ensuing development by being able to bid on projects and aspects of the development.

 

But at no point in time was it an intent or obligation to purchase

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/qa-all-you-need-to-know-before-the-f-35-debate-hits-parliament

 

Why did Canada become involved?
Jean Chretien’s Liberal government recognized in 1997 that Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets were approaching the end of their lives. By signing on to the U.S.-led project then and agreeing to continue participating in 2002, it ensured Canada would be able to influence the design while making Canadian companies eligible for contracts. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s report said that “securing industrial benefits for Canadian companies continued to be a driving motivation for participation” in 2002

 

What were the implications of those two decisions?
The Chretien government cut a cheque for $10.6-million in 1997. It wrote another for $100-million in 2002 and disbursed $50-million to help Canadian companies involved in the project. Neither decision obligated Canada to purchase any F-35s, but it did allow Canadian companies to bid on contracts.

Given the bolded part and the investment in development of the jet what does that tell you? Btw by 2019 the jet will be comparable in price to the super hornet.

 

This is also a silly argument Pm's are advised by their military leaders on what equipment best suits the military's needs.