Americans flee north to Canada for economic opportunity

We interrupt this thread for the usual--and tiresome-- LJ-Derangement-Syndrome personal attacks....


:Snooze

Let us know when you've wiped your chins and are ready to proceed after your time-out...

And her useless response.

One day the puppet string on LJ's Leftybot back will snap and peace will forever reign.

Yeah who started the sh%t slinging.
You cannot hold a constructive conversation with a dog. So keep your stupid negativity to your cubicle.

If we are going to get into the my friends have different stories than your friends.....lets change gears and I'll go with my family and friends.....who live in a very rural area, the nearest city is 40 miles away and it's an American city. This is where I grew up, and it hasn't changed much in 40 years. The local hospital probably has 20- 25 beds, and little in the way of urgent care, though it does have an emergency room. Universal healthcare in Canada was about the best think that ever happened to this area.....first....now doctors get paid the same pretty much where ever they work, so more doctors have come to the area as it is a pretty place and right on the lake. Fishing and agriculture drive the local economy.....there are good years and bad years......being able to afford health services in the bad years is a big boost for families. Like LJ said, when there is a serious issue the patient gets transferred to a major hospital in a big city, sometimes Toronto, 2 hours away, sometimes Buffalo, about 40 minutes to an hour away.....and Canada pays.

The bottom line is that I have heard some complaints about wait times, but those have diminished considerably since the early days, and no one has to wait for critical care. I haven't talked to everyone in the area, obviously, but the opinion I have gotten since they first put the system in is that's a lot better than the old days. I get more complaints about Canada going all metric (still) than I do about healthcare.

Thanx for a POSITIVE response archer.

That is what I was trying to figure out. If people who are complaining are to far away from help do they finally get it or are they just giving up and taking another route.
I like solitude but these guys are remote, remote. we hunt up there from time to time and they joke that if you get hurt nature will take care of you before they can get you to a medical facility.

And now back to the TOPIC of economic opportunity.

Anyone know what the corporate tax rate is in Canada and would it have anything at all to do with more employment opportunities?

CriticalBill wrote: Anyone know what the corporate tax rate is in Canada and would it have anything at all to do with more employment opportunities?

Japan and the US have the highest corporate tax rates so Canada's has to be lower.
Then again, the US seems to create more loopholes so the "real" corporate tax rate for US firms might be lower.

Here's the info for Canada: (16.5% this year...)

http://www.canadabusinesstax.com/corpor ... tax-rates/


And here's the difference between "Statutory" and REAL U.S. Corporate tax rates.... (Imagine my surprise!) :VeryScared:

The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates
Actual taxes paid by consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies now is less than half the statutory rate[/b]

Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

* Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.

* Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.

* In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.

* In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.

* Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.

Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_w ... lummet.php

Republicans Love Tax Cuts... Unless Obama Proposes One