www.appliedproductivity.com
My problems with the deputy minister of Revenue Canada started in 2000.I filled out my income tax and I was only on C.P.P. disability for income.With my credits I should have gotten about $1000 in refunds.I didn't even take all my credits.But I could get no refund for 2000,2001,and2002.I went to an income tax preparer and she offered to give me half of my refund if she got it.She knew the deputy would not give it to me and would give it to her.She was right and I got half of my return for these three years.
Next I got my superannuation going back to 1988 and a return of my pension from Public Work .I had to return my pension and put it in a R.R.S.P. But the deputy will not tell me how to get it nor how much interest it is earning.In fact they will not answer my phone calls nor my e-mails.I can't get my hands on my pension.
I was also supposed to get a second part to my superannuation but the deputy kept it for future income tax payments.I was told that I could not get my second payment in a cheque.A civil servant (who answered the phone )told me that he would give me $20,000 in cash if he could keep my cheque.I declined but I realized again that everyone knows that the deputy will not give me my money.
Lastly in 2008 when I got my superannuation back pay(in a lump sum) I counted it as being paid over 8 years.This is according to Revenue Canada circulars.I also checked with two accountants and they told me that what I did was proper.But Revenue Canada refuses to let me take it over 8 years.They want me to consider it as being paid in one year.This makes my income tax as being three to four times more (including a provincial tax surplus).Once again the deputy will not give my money.
An earlier blog talked about the lack of investment in research and productivity in Canada.It was also pointed out that Canada is a leader in applied productivity and applied research.Canadians know how to modify existing technology to increase productivity.Canadians also know how to make use of older equipment to get the job done.
The government does have some productivity programs as well.They also have the Business Development Bank which serves as a lender of last resorts.But the total program funds available for productivity is quite small.There is much more funds available for what I am calling social programming.This does little for productivity.Spending from social programming goes basically to staples -food,licquor,and housing.These areas show little increase in productivity with an increase in demand.The cost of a house does not come down much if you build two,three or more.The government tries to remedy this by giving outright grants and bonuses to technology companies.They have an increase in cash balances on their books.But do they spend any of this new cash on investment?Probably not.
The I.M.F. and O.E.C.D show that Canada is the lowest in the G-8 in investment and research in technology.This does not only cover technology companies but technology from other industries as well.This is partly because our technology companies are not very profitable;they have little profit to invest and so invest in areas that have more impact.So they don't spend money on inventing a new lightbulb;they spend it on making it work better.The I.M.F states that Canada leads the G-8 in applied research.Also Canadian equipment is older on average than American equipment and most G-8 countries.
That is why in my program I didn't spend money on new research.I also spent money on modifying existing
ways of doing business.I did not try to find a new and cheaper L.N.G.plant but how to build it quicker and efficiently.I did not try to start new technology companies but operate existing ones better.The kernel of my program was put on efficiency.If you do things better then you will make more profit.I also put a heavy emphasis on used equipment.I rarely recommended new loaders or bulldozers.The extra cost was only depreciation;a three old tractor works almost as good and costs less.Once again applied productivity.This was and is the Canadian way.
A number of blogs on Workathon talk about the "too strong " role by the governme
nts(provincial and federal) in the economy.I have stated that economic growth would increase if less tax revenues were delivered into the hands of the government.It has even been speculated that the governments have dabbled in social programming where (friends) have gotten special treatment and income (unfriendlies) have not done as well as in a neutral situation.This kind of programming would put money into administration and materials that would have less of a trickle-down effect.The result of this behaviour ,if true,would reduce the government's economic multiplier even more.So far this does not seem to be true.
A previous blog talked about the"ordinary" budgetary revenue which is separate from revenue from G.S.T.or P.S.T. and from the deficit revenues.I don't have data on the ordinary provincial budget revenues but I do on the federal budget.A few years ago it was about $130 billion.So I estimated that now it is about $145 to $150 billion with ordinary growth .The usual figure used to derive provincial data is 40%.That is,Ontario is about 40%of the Canadian population and 40% of the Canadian economy.So I estimated that the provincial budget was about $60 billion before deficits and P.S.T. revenues.This year the deficit is about $16 billion(in 2010 it was about $21 billion).The P.S.T revenues at 8% of total income comes in at about $55 billion as the Ontario economy is about $700 billion.So the total government revenues come to about $130 billion in 2012.In addition,the revenue that comes out of the Ontario economy from the federal G.S.T tax is about $35 billion.So the total government revenue that comes out of the Ontario economy is about equal to $130 billion.This becomes a problem because the Ontario growth rate is slowing down considerably and a good part of it is because of too much money in the hands of the government.As everyone knows the consumer multiplier is larger than the government multiplier.
