tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7944029565868546188.post7975633218293541207..comments2020-05-03T09:59:54.179-07:00Comments on Up For Discussion: Corporate Sponsorship or Government Hand-outs: What Side of the Fence Are You On?Brandonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06729511022505491011noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7944029565868546188.post-64471887148333358222011-09-13T10:14:57.784-07:002011-09-13T10:14:57.784-07:00Welcome to the discussion!Welcome to the discussion!Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06729511022505491011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7944029565868546188.post-64350521036309668322011-09-13T09:07:02.143-07:002011-09-13T09:07:02.143-07:00Brandon
I'm in total agreement. The taxation...Brandon<br /><br /> I'm in total agreement. The taxation of Corporations is not a viable method to encourage contribution to the landscape of society. Your example of Potashcorp has been thus far well received around Saskatchewan as they have definitely been on a PR campaign as of late. There attempts to appear as a good corporate citizen is I feel self serving though. The purse strings only opened wider due to the increases pressure of others appearing on their playing field such as BHPBilliton. This is simply the PotashCorps attempt to keep the feared competitors such as BHPBilliton from encroaching on the field. <br /><br /> As you mention some political parties wish to "Steal Back" a share of the wealth created through increases in royalties and higher taxation.<br /> I say "steal" simple because that is what it is when government sell's something then turn around take the profits back through increasing taxation just because they can. The person you sold it to has invested there time, efforts and financial resources into the development they deserve the profits. The idea of changing the rules after sale is like selling your car to someone then expecting to drive it again. If there were any truly free thinkers in those parties their heads would be spinning. <br /><br />Society receives voluntary contribution when it is not imposed and competition exists. Increasing taxation will result in the voluntary contributions drying up. The more competition the better. Increases in taxation and regulation serve one purpose that is to make corporation's look elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7944029565868546188.post-1795870932998486512011-09-12T23:19:36.638-07:002011-09-12T23:19:36.638-07:00The post wasn't advocating dropping taxation; ...The post wasn't advocating dropping taxation; rather it was advocating NOT raising them.<br /><br />I would also take issue with your suggestion that there is "pressure" to tax them more. The only pressure is coming from the NDP who conceivably might not win a seat (okay, I exaggerate slightly, but they certainly won't form government). If anything, they are more motivated to contribute locally to prove their worth so that they are seen as invaluable and not again faced with a hostile takeover. Or, alternately, they are just responsible corporate citizens...or some combination. Whatever the "cause", if the correlation between altruism and lower taxes exists...wouldn't we want lower taxes?<br /><br />You say "false dichotomy" I say exaggeration to prove a point. Yes, some people will always require assistance--and the government needs to be involved--however, I believe that more individuals need to take responsibility for their personal circumstances and take initiative...if corporate sponsorship affords venues to aid in that, then I'd much rather see that than increased taxation.<br /><br />I do appreciate your thoughtful comments.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06729511022505491011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7944029565868546188.post-88315843545574149582011-09-12T18:52:15.494-07:002011-09-12T18:52:15.494-07:00I think that PotashCorp only is one example of a g...I think that PotashCorp only is one example of a good corporation giving back to the community while not being as heavily taxed as comparative businesses. The sample size is too small to be able to say that we need to drop taxation across the board. <br /><br />There is also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in here. You suggest that PotashCorp gives simply because they have more money to use. However, perhaps it is the very fact that there is pressure to tax them more, that they are contributing in such a way. There is a correlation between altruism and lower taxation, but that does not mean that the lower taxation is the cause.<br /><br />I am curious as to your use of quotes around the poor. I think you also need to provide more data to back up your suggestion that giving funding to the poor continues a cycle of government dependency.<br /><br />You also close with a false dichotomy. I find false dichotomies to be particularly troublesome, especially in today's politics. Too often we are presented with two options, and are told to chose between them, even though those are not the only two options. <br />The options are not limited to handouts and additional business-sponsored events. <br /><br />Be skeptical, not susceptible.EmpyClawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15681779635363475890noreply@blogger.com