"We have to know that a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes and we want to reward the people who are actually creating jobs."
Another piece of classical economic insights from the Prime Minister.
It doesn't make any sense but it sure sounds good. And with this bunch leading the government, sounding good - or looking marvellous - is much better than being sensible.
In two tiny sentences, he manages to get you to fall back on your couch or chair in frustration while face palming.
-What does 'we have to know' mean? Other than the usual misleading drivel? Is it settled? Do 4 out of 5 dentists agree? Do we have a consensus anywhere near the mythical '96% of scientists' believe in climate change? Truth is, there is no 'study' that empirically shows what he's asserting. I don't even thing he even knows given he never started and ran a business. Justin has never had to make payroll.
-It would help, also, for the PM to define 'wealthier Canadians'. It would also be helpful to not mislead Canadian into making it sound like small business deductions are a nefarious ploy by crafty 'rich' Canadians to not pay 'their fair share'. Alas, you need to find demons and scapegoats to further and support your progressive agenda of getting greedy people to pay 'their fair share', no?
The average salary for a small business owner is $68 000 in the United States. Even adjusted for Canadian dollars (roughly $90 000) it doesn't have the same demonizing impact Justin is probably angling for.
Then again, as mentioned, it's not like he defined what he meant by 'wealthier.' If Justin meant it relative to the population (average salary in North America is about $48 000) then yeah, he's awesome. But the problem is $90 is just middle-class. Bus drivers, cops and even some teachers - all civil servants- are not that far away from these figures. Not wealthy in the sense he's aiming for.
-On rewarding. It's not the effen government's place to 'reward' entrepreneurship. The 'rewarding' usually comes at the expense of other people. Government Intervention Unintended Consequences 101. Aside from this tidbit, it further cements his incoherent statement as once someone starts a business they've created ONE job at the very least - the owner while having created all sorts of demand for your product or service. This is where the 'unseen' kicks in that many cement-headed, zero-sum progressives can't seem to grasp because they're too busy cutting their beards to look like Bolsheviks. The unseen being the fact SME's sub-contract, outsource and trade to the point it spawns subindustries. For example, that metal designer who was looking for work as an independent can suddenly .Inc himself get to work. Hey, right there more jobs are created!
-As mentioned, rooted in this ignorance is the idea the government can improve or spurn entrepreneurship by incentivizing new businesses by screwing over existing ones that have done absolutely nothing wrong to deserve to be spoken to in this condescending, flippant and irresponsible manner.