already<\/em> in the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNow, let\u2019s say that this company operated out of Alberta and met all the requirements for having to pay the corporate tax rate in Alberta, which is 12% but will soon drop to 8%. If my understanding of corporate income tax is correct, they\u2019d pay 12% of their operating income, or $53.4 million. When it changes to 8%, they\u2019ll pay $35.6 million instead, which means they\u2019ll keep $17.8 million more than they had been.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whereas, they were injecting $10.773 billion into the economy previously, now they\u2019ll get to inject $10.791 billion into the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maybe it\u2019s just me, but this increase doesn\u2019t seem like it would lead to the creation of significantly more jobs than they\u2019re already creating indirectly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, I agree with the idea that spending more money leads to more jobs. After all, if companies have no customers to buy their products or services, they\u2019ll go out of business. But it\u2019s increased demand, not increased profits, that leads to more jobs. Theoretically, a corporation can have profit and not even spend it, so higher profit isn\u2019t even a guarantee that the economy will see higher spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Third, governments spend money. They don\u2019t hoard the taxes they collect; they spend them: on building and maintaining highways, on building schools, on staffing emergency rooms, on paying utilities for government buildings, and so on. All of those require labour, which means jobs. So while it may be true that lower taxes will lead to more money available to a company for spending, potentially creating additional indirect jobs, higher taxes also create additional jobs because that money is now being spent by the government instead of by the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which actually leads to this question: if Loblaws, hypothetically speaking, has $17.8 million more to spend in the economy but the government has $17.8 million less to spend in the economy, will the tax cut lead to a net increase in jobs, or will the number of jobs simply remain the same but just change where in the economy they reside?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fourth, if you agree that tax cuts will lead to more jobs because companies have more money to spend, does that mean you agree in a higher minimum wage? After all, if workers have more money to spend, wouldn\u2019t that also lead to more jobs?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Frankly, I don\u2019t buy this change in rhetoric anymore than I bought their previous version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n