Monday, January 31, 2011

Canadians Don't Want Corporate Tax Cuts

That much is clear, though I'd always be careful around such issue polling, especially issue polling from Abacus and Leger.

But, really, so what? Don't get me wrong, I think going after this reckless tax cut is the right path, but even with Canadians lined up against it, we're still not making any real headway with the argument we've been touting for, what, three months now? Meanwhile the Conservatives are pounding away at us with attack ads that focus on Iggy's pragmatically right but political bombshell of an idea of possibly hiking the GST. Guess which side of the divide Canadians will be on that one, Leger and Abacus.

And amazingly, I've yet to hear a real good comeback for that line of attack the Cons have. What's that about? We won't win on opposition to corporate tax cuts, especially if we're being hammered for possibly raising personal taxes. Keep that in mind, Liberal strategists/bloggers. Because we can certainly lose if you don't.


  1. Though I am no Liberal, this was once a great party, and today they seem to have just dispensed with their strategists altogether. They just seem to have no idea how to deal with their position as the opposition and they just don't have the comebacks for what are fairly straightforward political problems. As Curiosity Cat said a couple of days ago, the Liberals just need to frame these problems in a simple and straightforward way - "Money for Large Corporations or Money for Kids." Simple framing, uncomplicated distinctions between the party that reflects a corporate agenda and a party that reflects the real needs of people. "Billions for prisons or money for education" - "Fighter jets or Freedom from Poverty."

    Simple, straightforward, continually repeated, well targeted. When will the Liberals wake up to the idea of simple framing and messaging???

  2. You want the response? Here ya go:

    Ignatieff's comment about the GST was just that he wouldn't take it off the table: he'd consider restoring it to previous levels if that was the only way to balance the budget. Which is the responsible thing for an Opposition Leader to say: particularly since the Govt's probably fudging the books and we'll find things are much worse than they've been pretending.

    And guess what -- 'Loose Lips' Flaherty finally did the same thing just last week!

    "Flaherty opens door to tax hikes in case of another economic 'shock'," by Postmedia reporter Andrew Mayeda, Jan, 26 2011,

    "at a news conference Wednesday morning, Flaherty hinted that tax increases could turn out to be necessary, in the event of a "substantial economic shock." Here's the minister's response to a question about whether the government would consider raising taxes down the road:

    "...You know, given what we've all been through around the world in the last few years, I would never presume to say 'never' in terms of a very substantial economic shock where we'd have to have one."

  3. We can promise to lower PERSONAL INCOME TAX. As we argued before. Done.

  4. The poll results here are so perfectly obvious. Of course people would say no to corporate tax cuts. They look at all government decisions as a zero sum game where if they do not see a clear and measureable benefit to them then it must be to their detriment. Most people have trouble balancing their own household spending with their income, how can you expect them to understand the long term benefits of increased national productivity and supply side policy changes.

    Similar polls that ask about complex trade issues, health care spending and environmental regulation are all mostly folly unless you are sure the person answering understands the issue. Most don't.

    I don't beleive that the Liberals are against the move from an economic perspective, they're just trying to make hay on something that they think they can get the public behind. It's a mostly dishonest pursuit.

  5. kirby,

    I don't trust much of what comes out of the Cat, but you're definitely right about that one part. Just don't ask me to agree with anything else the coalition-baiting Cat says. xD It really does hinge on whether or not they can frame it properly, and in a simple, easy-to-understand way.


    Okay, now explain that in six words or less.

    The fact is that Iggy isn't in the wrong - the problem is that the messaging sucks.


    Aren't we already? Heck, didn't the Green Shift even present that?


    I disagree.

  6. Okay: "Flaherty won't rule it out, either."

  7. Voters in California don't want taxes either, and now the state is almost bankrupt.

  8. WhigWag,

    Perfect, though sadly reminiscent of "if we're going down, you're coming with us." Submit it to the DonOLO!


    That's democracy inaction for you.

  9. Which is why the goal of bankruptcy would be to provide an orderly process for resolution of debts, which may include extending the maturity of bonds or other such measures.
    And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for creditors