If you open your eyes David, you might see the point you just missed

Earlier this week, we pointed out that David Frum needed intensive remedial training in all matters economics. Frum, you might remember, argued that between 1993 and 2003, “the lion’s share of Canadian economic growth” was pocketed by the federal government. How did he know?

Easy: while Canada’s GDP grew by 67% during that time, federal tax revenue grew by 45%. 45% is almost all of 67% after all — hence, the lion’s share. Because we are a helpful people here at Sadly, No! we had emailed Brad DeLong who also pointed out the error of his ways to David Frum.

Well, today Frum responded and, in case you were wondering, he pretends not to get the point. After throwing in a few gratuitous insults aimed at Brad (who does that moron Frum think he is, Sadly, No!?) Frum writes:

Anyway, DeLong disputes my claim that the cost of government has depressed Canadian living standards since 1993.

David you ignorant slut. DeLong (and we!) pointed out that 1/8 isn’t the lion’s share of anything. DeLong doesn’t even discuss living standards in his post, so he can hardly be said to be disputing that “claim.” What DeLong (and we!) pointed out is that you (Frum!) obviously didn’t understand the numbers you were throwing around. That mistake was indefensible and — to his credit — Frum doesn’t try to do so. Instead he moves on to greener pastures, calling in the Fraser Institute for backup:

In 1993, the average Canadian household had cash income of $44,375 C$59,165 and paid $18,815 C$25,086 in taxes of all kinds. In 2003, the average household had cash income of $58,286 C$77,712 ? and paid $28,415 C$37,886 in taxes.

In other words, cash incomes rose by about $14,000 C$18,666 per household over the period, while taxes rose by almost exactly $10,000 C$13,333. You can see why people would be feeling restless. [Frum used US$ figures, which we converted using Oanda to avoid converting those used by the Fraser Institute.]

We can see — unfortunately the numbers Frum quotes (without a direct link) don’t match those contained in this PDF report from the Fraser Institute. [link to a PDF file with the relevant page only.] If we read the data correctly, from 1993 to 2003 federal taxes on the average Canadian family increased from just above C$15,000 to just above C$20,000. Total taxes went from slightly less than C$30,000 to slightly more than C$35,000.

In this other Fraser Institute report, in 2003 the average Canadian family is said to have had a total income before tax of C$113,612, with an income tax bill of C$12,081. (And a total tax bill of C$35,808.) So what happened?

For one thing, Frum apparently pulled numbers out of his ass, messed up when he converted them into US$, or the Fraser Institute can’t add and hence comes up with different answers in different reports. In addition boys and girls, Frum uses total taxes paid but only part of the income earned by the average Canadian family. Now that’s being creative! Is it at all possible that non-cash income grew as a share of total income during those years? Would you compare total taxes paid using as your baseline only part of your income? We wouldn’t.

Frum then opines:

On the other hand, the federal government collects more taxes than anybody else, and especially more of the highly visible direct taxes on incomes.

According to the Fraser Institute, income tax for the average Canadian family was C$11,855 in 2003. Is that the lion’s share of the total tax bill of C$35,808? You. Tell. Us. (In 2004 total federal taxes, at C$20,577 were at least more than half of the total tax bill of $C36,369.)

Yet another Fraser Institute table shows that the average tax rate paid by the average Canadian family went from 45.9% in 1995 to 48.3% in 2003. So how is it possible that an average increase of C$14,000 in income from 1993 to 2003 led to an increase in one’s tax bill of C$10,000. Try this: it isn’t.

Frum concludes with:

In other words: the lions are hungry.

No David: In other words, the lions are stupid. Tr?s stupid.

 

Comments: 23

 
 
 

Sadly, “The Lion’s Share” properly refers to the whole, the totality, or 100%. Nothing less is “the lion’s share.”

Usage has changed the meaning to “anything above 50%,” or even “the largest of however many shares there are,” but the original meaning was “ALL OF IT.”

“One third of the kill is mine for making the kill, one-third is my due as king of beasts, and, as for the remainder, let he who may dispute it with me.”

Ed

 
 

Dunno about the lions, but I am hungry. Maybe it’s time to head up to Montreal for some poutine…

 
Abhishiktananda
 

Post the reply! Post the reply!

Pleeeeeeeeeeease?

 
 

Abhishiktananda: What?

NTodd: Hmm, poutine.

 
Abhishiktananda
 

Sadly No, I was hoping you could print the full text of Frum’s reply, just for kicks.

 
Abhishiktananda
 

Disregard, I just saw it in Frum’s incoherent ramblings at NRO.

 
 

whatever the original meaning of “lion’s share”, I think we can all agree that today, pretty much anyone who uses it is trying to say, “by far the largest part…”

 
 

Has anyone asked Frum how his book (“An End To Evil”) is selling? Is it on the bargain book table at Borders yet?

Last time I checked at a book store, they had LOTS of copies on hand. Many of them dusty.

 
 

May I apologise on behalf of all frozen Canuckistans for having inflicted this tedious, tendentious and essentially clueless bore upon your Republic? Truth be told, he couldn’t find work in Canada save at the financially crippled National Post and this despite being the offspring of the late Barbara Frum, Canada’s finest radio journalist. If the acorn falls not far from the oak, I have to conclude that the David acorn detatched during a hurricane.

Despite my apology I ask that you not send him back. Surely Free Republic can find something for him to do.

 
 

May I apologise on behalf of all frozen Canuckistans for having inflicted this tedious, tendentious and essentially clueless bore upon your Republic? Truth be told, he couldn’t find work in Canada save at the financially crippled National Post and this despite being the offspring of the late Barbara Frum, Canada’s finest radio journalist. If the acorn falls not far from the oak, I have to conclude that the David acorn detatched during a hurricane.

Despite my apology I ask that you not send him back. Surely Free Republic can find something for him to do.

 
 

OOPS! SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE.

 
glenstonecottage
 

Somebody up here in Canada got off a good one at David, who somehow snags gig commenting on political and economics here.

“Shouldn’t a major requirement for reporting on a country be that you actually LIVE in the country that you’re reporting on?”

That being said, I agree with Khaki Snat that we don’t really miss David here, and you are welcome to keep him until you absolutely can’t stand one minute more.

 
glenstonecottage
 

Oh, yeah, almost forgot… David’s wingnut wife (can’t remember her name at this moment, but she chose to keep her maiden name as her professional writing name) once wrote an article criticizing married women who…. three guesses?

Go ahead, guess!

If you guessed “married women who don’t use their husband’s last name” then you win a genuine zinc-plated wingnut!

 
 

While it’s on my mind, Seb, happy Canada Day. Unless you’re one of those separatists, in which case you probably don’t care….oh, well, I tried. šŸ™‚

 
 

The best part about any increase in wages up here is that it is never spent on health insurance premiums – Also, we’ve had a pretty good eleven years – that’s why Conservatives only got 29% of the vote nationally –
Frum’s a national embarassement – you would have loved him Mom – She was the best interviewer I ever had the pleasure of listening to –

 
 

Has anyone asked Frum how his book (“An End To Evil”) is selling? Is it on the bargain book table at Borders yet?

I saw it on a remainder table months and months ago. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

He’s an idiot.

 
 

Frum correct? Sadly, no! Actually, not so sadly…

Mustafa Hirji and I had a big argument about David Frum’s typical misrepresentations and Brad DeLong’s response to them. Now David Frum has responded to DeLong on lines somewhat similar to those used by Mr. Hirji….

 
 

The thing people also forget is what they get from their taxes. People whose whole education was subsidized (including university), who work in fields also aided by government grants, etc. go on to complain about taxes. Of course now lots of tax money goes to war but somehow you’d think it was handed over in gold bars to all those lazy homeless people.

 
glenstonecottage
 

Amen to that, Miel. Someone once said:

“The average Canadian voter is an eminently reasonable fellow. All he expects from government are first-class public services, low taxes, and a balanced budget.”

 
 

Abhishiktananda: Oops, we didn’t realize we’d forgotten the link. Added now, whether you need it or not.

 
 

Sorry, I don’t think your math stands up. You’re saying that the 45% increase in federal revenue is “almost all of” / “the lion’s share of” 67% of the GDP. It’s apples and oranges. I don’t expect that even Canadian federal revenues are anywhere near as large as the country’s GDP — so you’re taking 45% of a small number and saying it’s most of 67% of a much larger number.

If you’re going to use numbers, use them accurately, eh?

 
 

We’re Doomed

Via Matthew Yglesias, we find this deeply disturbing post from Seb’s best bud David Frum about Bush’s latest Supreme Court pick, Harriet Miers: In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her…

 
 

(comments are closed)