Raising Corporate Taxes: Article Analysis

The main concepts of the article are describing the corporate welfare system and how it is responsible for growing economic imbalances between the poor and rich populations. The article elaborated on how we cannot ignore the issue anymore because of the substantial loss that we are facing by letting the gap grow (Huff, 1993). The article also goes into the IRS and how there are tax exemptions and deductions that people qualify for and what is allowed.

Minimum wage is the lowest amount of money that an employer can pay an employee under labor law. The cruel irony of the minimum wage is that it harms most the very segments of our society that it is intended to help—the unskilled poor and the inexperienced young. However, the Canadian Labour Congress (2009) noted, “unionized worker earned $4.97 an hour more than a non-union worker in 2012”. That equates to roughly $10,000 more in monetary compensation relative to non-union workers. Although it varies based on sector and occupation, the union difference for workers across the board is undeniable. The unionized workers are able to live off a living wage.

Price then realized that since it was the workers that were making these productivity gains, their minimum wages should increase. As a result, he cut his own salary to fund a company-wide increase of the minimum wage to seventy-thousand dollars (Keegan). Price’s actions reflect the importance of workers and their contributions to a firm. These gains should be going to the workers since they are the source of the productivity gains. CEOs can implement a program or buy technology to increase rates of production, but it is up to the employees as a collective mass to actually execute this action. Disbursing these productivity gains would contribute to increasing the minimum wage, inherently moving families up closer to or above the poverty line. Ranks show that forty percent of Americans between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-six will spend one year below the poverty line and fifty-four percent will spend a year at or near that line (Kiernan 182). For workers to still live in poverty is because without them, there would be implementation of the good or service a CEO is trying to provide. Employees are the basis of production and should be valued more than the current minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage would also prevent people from working nonstandard hours to earn more money, which would increase the living standard. Workers that have nonstandard hours tend to be single mothers with children, who are then forced to leave their children alone

wage does more harm than good to the working class people. The hope of every American

Many Canadians may look at the minimum wage increase as a positive aspect of the economy, however, there are other factors which contribute to this matter. The cost of living in Canada is rising, for example, food prices have inflated by 1.1% since August 2015. This may not seem like a considerable amount, but the costs accumulate over time.

Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that the Supposed “Shot of adrenaline” created many jobs in even the businesses that were making use of the policy in an honest way. In fact, according to Jordan Weissmann, a writer for Slate, “a group of economists took stock of the Kansas misadventure, using administrative tax data to figure out whether the cuts had done any good at all. In short, the researchers concluded, they had not”(Weissmann). This is alarming as if the bill did not make progress in decreasing unemployment, then the lost revenue for the state of Kansas must have caused issues in other aspects. Illustrating this point, Jordan Weismann alleges that because the State cut taxes on LLCs, it was required to “cut spending on public schools, colleges, Medicaid, and more”(Weissmann).

In his article “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich”, Warren Buffett criticizes the fact that billionaires in United States actually pay less percentages of taxes than those working-classes. Buffett believes the government needs to stop protecting the “super-rich”.

The manufacturing industry was once a very large part of Ontario’s economy. We are seeing more and more manufacturing businesses disappearing and moving elsewhere. Ontario has a great potential to be a manufacturing powerhouse but the current situation is not attractive for many companies: “If a particular country has a lower price, the other countries will buy” (DPE 134). Because of the current value of the Canadian Dollar, manufacturing companies in Ontario could potentially export to the United States and make a greater profit because of the dollar. This is not the case as Ontario has seen a drastic drop in its GDP in the past ten years because of many manufacturing companies setting up elsewhere3. There are many reasons why this is but a large factor is the minimum wage on Ontario. Ontario, like many other countries has a minimum wage that employers must pay to its employees. Many countries in Asia or Latin America do not have a minimum wage so employers can pay their employees significantly less4. As the government continues to raise concerns about raising the minimum wage once again many manufacturing businesses are becoming anxious about if they too should move to an off shore location as this could be a potential cost savings for their company. The government and its economists will need to continue to analyze to see if raising the minimum wage

According to Laurie Monsebraaten and Zoe McKnight of the Toronto Star (2013), a whopping 50% of Ontario workers of all income levels get by with precarious work - which has no benefits, often low paying, and often temporary. To make matters even worse, the way the Employment Standards Act handles precarious work allows for legal loopholes that effect temporary and fulltime workers alike. Fortunately, the Ontario government is aware of the situation and is proposing changes to benefit employees. For me, the three most important changes are to paid vacation time, over time hours, and schedule-change compensation.

The article’s main idea is to point out the negative effects a raise in taxes for corporations will have in Oregon residents. A potential increase of $2.5 billion per year in tax revenue would result in better funding for public services. Such financial resources are portrayed in this article as both having job creating and job eliminating outcomes. If their data is accurate, the public sector would see an increase of 6,000 new positions. However, in the private sector, the effects are the complete opposite with an estimated reduction of at least 15,000 jobs, resulting in a 9,000 difference. Tax supporters would like voters to believe that only big corporations would be affected by the tax, but small businesses would pay more for the goods and services they bought from big corporations that paid the tax (The Oregonian,

In June of 2017, Bill 148, the “Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act” was introduced by the Ontario provincial government. Designed to redistribute wealth from employers to labourers and improve working conditions, the bill appears well intentioned. However, the abruptness of its implementation and the magnitude of the proposed changes could see negative effects for the Ontario economy. Many of its redistributive benefits are overstated, and rely heavily on the assumption that businesses will absorb the costs of the proposed changes. This is unlikely to happen, and the increased costs will more likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices, and fewer employment opportunities. While the focal point of Bill 148 is the nearly

From an early age, kids are taught that they have to go to university to receive a job. That they need basic skills learned in school to have a level of comprehension in the job. Then the search begins for the perfect job. While companies are eagerly waiting to refresh the line-up of workers for new, fresh faces into their organization, the question of how much they pay is highlighted. Thereby, the degree of pay a person can accumulate from a job is handled by the Government and not the companies. It has been agreed upon that in Ontario “The general minimum wage rises to $11.25 an hour, from $11” (Herhalt, 2015, para.2). Obviously there is a decision to be made of how many new employees to be hired. To companies this is the price to do business in the future while employees view this as their monetary income. Alas the conundrum appears, do companies view minimum wage as an investment or a cost to the organization. There are both positive and negative standpoints to this issue. And the best way to understand them is to divulge them into two separate stances. From a company and employee standpoint to bridge their perspectives of the ideal of minimum-wage into an agreed-upon consensus. I will demonstrate how the minimum wage is both an investment and cost by looking into the positives and negatives from both sides of the job.

Consideration for economic context is essential for work and learning. Companies, such as public, not for profit, privately operated/owned etc., have the ability to move unaccounted for resources across borders, attain cheap labour by outsourcing and create off-shore accounts to avoid taxes all of which impact work and learning. The Canadian economy is one derived of many variables. Employers creating workplaces by outsourcing their labour, moving resources that are unaccounted for or by creating accounts to avoid taxes are in business to have the lowest expenses and the most profit. These employers are prepared to do what it takes at whatever cost. The community in which I live consisted of several factories. These factories operated for many years employing many people in this community. Over the last 15 years most of these factories shut down and relocated to various other countries, obtaining cheap labour and new ways of distribution, leaving

     Besides a relatively non-competitive business environment, Canada?s labour force also lacks the competitive mindset. Structural employment remains high, which is partly due to the existence of social assistance and unemployment insurance systems. Work incentives are low under the protection of the employment insurance program, which indirectly contributes in a higher than the desirable unemployment rate. Furthermore, unions and other similar groups do not promote many incentives for workers to stay competitive in the workplace by continuously learning and improving productivity. Countries that have been most successful in cutting unemployment are those that have improved

When it comes to income taxes, the focus is usually on jobs, personal investments, and savings. The debate on who should bear the greater burden when it comes to income taxes is timeless. If all types of tax are aimed at developing the economy, it should be everyone’s equal responsibility to engage in taxation regardless of one’s economic class. Both parties involved proclaim the legitimacy of their arguments. The articles under discussion are representative of this debate. On one side of the debate, there are those who feel that the rich should pay more taxes. Then there are those who feel that the rich should not be punished by shouldering the burden of taxation (Benson and White 1). From an economic theorist’s point of view, both articles articulate valid arguments. However, this does not nullify the significance of the prevailing economic situation. The above debate can be based on various economic contexts.