While I appreciate that this guy is trying to get more competition, it seems like a cop out.
We had a 'lower prices or else' statement, they chose to respond 'lol k' and then did nothing. He should tax the fuck out of them, AND get the competition minister involved.
If you're gouging on vital products, you're fucking scum.
He should tax the fuck out of them
Ok, but realistically now, how would you even do that. What would be the law you'd implement to allow you to do that? That's not how taxes work at all.
The gov't can request info from the CRA on profits the big grocers make, compare them to pre-pandemic numbers and adjust their tax rate.
The other way is to reintroduce taxation rules from the 70's (pre Reagan/Thatcher trickle-down stupidity) and force the companies to pay more for larger profits.
@girlfreddy @chris As far as I know all taxpayer information is confidential even from the government.
The gov’t can request info from the CRA on profits the big grocers make, compare them to pre-pandemic numbers and adjust their tax rate.
You can't adjust the tax rates of INDIVIDUAL companies.
They can introduce a windfall tax, as in the specific kind of tax designed to discourage gouging.
the Government of Canada should consider introducing a windfall profits tax on large, price-setting corporations to disincentivize excess hikes in their profit margins for these items
Right, but it's broader than just targeting 3 large grocery chains. AFAIK there's no current law that allows the Government to tax an individual at a rate that isn't on the books, and something like this is still years away (it's just a recommendation after a year of study for starters).
It doesn't help anyone struggling to put food on the table in the short term sadly, but hey let's all just blast off into stupid land and suggest taxing them is the easy answer that will solve all of our problems. This isn't Facebook, and the original poster's suggestion was fucking retarded.
Who is saying only to tax the big grocery chains? It would also affect other industries (like oil and gas), according to the terms by which applicable price gouging is defined in the law. The point is to discourage unwarranted price increases by making them unprofitable after a certain point and according to specific metrics, not to punish specific industries. If you're not familiar with the concept, you could research it further and not just broadcast your assumptions or pretend it would be done in a vacuum where no other shorter term measures could be established.
I'm well aware of that, I'm referring to the original poster's thought thread.
Myself and everyone I know has no faith at all in the regulatory bodies of this country.
Corporations have faith in them, just not for the same reasons.
Tax. Them.
If they still don't reduce profitability, tax them some more.
This is fucking grocery distribution and retail. It's not microprocessor research or cancer-care drugs, there's no "innovation" you're stifling. Tax them.
Tax them and give the money back to the consumers. Otherwise consumers are still getting gouged but the government is profiting from it.
We are the government.
Tax them > They increase prices to compensate > They sell essential products so people still need to buy
The only way you can break them is by creating a non profit crown corporation to compete with them.
The point of marginal taxes is to make it acceptable to turn a reasonable profit, but taxes get more and more punitive as profits go up, and thusly price gouging isn't really worth the effort.
It still incentivizes making money but rather than taking those profits and grinding employees, suppliers and customers, you're incented to invest that money back into the business. You can still make millions or billions in revenue and make a reasonable profit, but instead of Galenm, senior leaders and laerger shareholders making bank, the profits go either to wages, facilities or (if you don't raise pay or invest) to the government.
This is, incidentally, how it all worked prior to 1980 or so, when we had a functioning social safety net.
Put it this way: if Weston is already a multibillionaire and still makes $300M/y in salary and comp, plus additional bonuses, then we're not taxing Loblaw enough. Could they raise prices? Sure, they could, but why, because they don't make enough billions yet?
Nuts to this idea of "if we tax them, they'll raise prices and/or leave". I've had enough of being blackmailed by billionaires. They need us to buy their stuff and back their wealth; we don't need them. If, eg, Loblaw wants to raise prices to maintain unreasonable post-tax profits, someone else can step in and do the same thing and charge less, and Galen can fuck off.
We're talking about essential products. No matter the price people need to eat so from the get go the "price gouging isn't worth the effort" argument goes out the window.
99% of the products in a grocery store are not essential.
Essential foods are things like flour and oil and potatoes.
To miss the point by that much you must have done it on purpose
They make most of their money on luxury items and processed foods, not essentials.
It's ok buddy, no need to reply anymore, you've proven you're an idiot already, we get it.
Canada: Don't adjust wages for inflation.
Also Canada: Gosh, the food prices skyrocketed... if only we could do something.
Canadian Dairy Farmers: Should I buy a second Tesla or switch it up?
Basically, "go away before I taunt you a second time"
It is so obvious it is price gouging from big chains. Same product at a dollar store a block away from SuperStore is half price. Dollar Store consistent price throughout COVID, Superstore creeping up 25¢ each week, until the point of "I can't justify buying this here" . And now SuperStore has electronic tags they change the price randomly up and down, as much as +$2 on a $4 item for a few days. There is no way to budget food basics with this nonsense. Luckily we have Fruiticana out west, where produce is typically half price of SuperStore pricing.
I agree, the small local grocers / regional chains used to be consistently more expensive than going to Superstore or Walmart. They have raised prices, but somehow not as much as the big guys. They still can't compete on some of the big volume staples like milk, eggs, pasta, and bread, but is it really worth saving a buck on a couple items just to pay more for everything else? In a way it's almost a good thing though, it's never been an easier decision to support local.
Well, his first problem is thinking "food inflation" is a thing. There is no inflation, it's all just unchecked corporate greed.
Want to fix the problem? Introduce a new tax that cleans house of all the money stolen by the corporations and put them back into education and health care.
That would just increase the price further as the corporations would shift the cost to the clients.
Want to solve it permanently? Crown corporation grocery stores.
If the taxes are designed to create a ceiling, it wouldn't matter how much they charged.
I do like the idea of crown corporation grocery stores, though. Let's go that route.
Only way that works is a 100% tax rate after a certain point and what I think would happen is that they would find better ways to dodge them...
The only way I can view this is it's another occasion where they said they tried and it's just the way things are or he's so delusional that he thought all he had to do was ask to get food prices under control.
As usual regardless of your political affiliation 200k+ is a lot to pay for someone for this quality of work.
For anyone wondering his next game plan is deferring to the Competition Bureau. I feel like somehow the timing of them really wanting to do something will be awful close to the next election cycle.
I feel like somehow the timing of them really wanting to do something will be awful close to the next election cycle.
Ah, yes, the standard Liberal wash cycle:
Nothing essential should be in private hands. NOBODY should be making a profit from anything essential. Everything deemed essential should be provided by the government at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers. If the private sector wants a share they can be in charge of alcohol, drugs, cosmetics, swarovski crystals, celebrity car air fresheners etc...
Is it bad to let private companies compete with a public institution? If they want to do it for less, go for it, but if they charge more, people can use the public option?
He's the Champagne of bad Industry Ministers
We need public options for the entire supply and distribution chain
Yup, stop giving farmers subsidies, nationalize the production
Stop arguing with grocers, open State owned groceries
But Justin talked to them! I thought this was solved?!?
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: