L'ONU à Montréal (2007)

[Habsfan]

Principalement, ils ont baissé la fiscalité des entreprises pour avoir le taux le plus compétitif de toute l'UE (12,5 % versus 35 % en france par exemple), investi dans la formation et appliqué une rigueur budgétaire.

 

Il y a un bon article sur wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger

 

Merci pour le lien, c'était très intéressant.

 

J'ai remarqué une chose qui différencie le Québec de l'Irlande. La Langue. Le fait qu'ils parlent anglais a grandement aidé l'Irelande à sortir de son trou.

[LindbergMTL]

On fait beaucoup de comparaisons entre pays ici... Y a des surprises!

 

 

 

NEIL REYNOLDS

 

Globe and Mail Update

 

* E-mail Neil Reynolds

* | Read Bio

* | Latest Columns

 

August 15, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT

 

Canada fared reasonably well – or appeared to do so – in KPMG's Competitive Alternatives, its comparison of the costs of doing business in more than 100 cities in 10 countries: Australia, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the U.S. and Canada. In this comprehensive report, published last month, KPMG graded these cities and countries by calculating a Total Tax Index (TTI) for each of them, with the U.S. providing the benchmark score of 100. Canada scored 78.3 – meaning that its real corporate tax rate was 21.7 per cent less than the U.S. rate. Mexico emerged as the lowest-taxed jurisdiction (TTI: 70.2), Italy as the highest (TTI: 185.3).

 

The KPMG report attracted more attention than competitiveness reports of this kind normally attract – perhaps because people thought that it made the distinctly contrarian case that Canada's corporate taxes had fallen enough already. (On its website, the CBC put a correspondingly triumphalist headline on its story: “Canada Better Than U.S. for Corporate Taxes.”) If this were indeed so, why does Finance Minister Jim Flaherty keep trying – by inference, obstinately – to cut them more?

 

KPMG produced another set of numbers, however, that didn't get as much attention: each country's total cost of doing business. In this exercise, the company identified 27 significant costs of running a business, calculated all of the after-tax costs of starting an enterprise and operating it for 10 years, and assessed the cost implications for a variety of other factors – labour markets, infrastructure, regulatory environment, and so on.

 

In this comparison, Mexico emerged – predictably, as an emerging economy – with the lowest cost of doing business. (It has a 20.5-per-cent cost advantage over the U.S. benchmark cost.) Among the nine kindred industrialized countries, KPMG said, Canada, Australia and the U.S. were “cost leaders.” Business costs in the three countries, KPMG concluded, “are virtually equivalent, with less than 1 per cent separating them.” France ranked fifth, with the lowest-cost structure in Europe (and only 3.6 per cent higher than the U.S. benchmark). Britain (7.1 per cent), the Netherlands (7.3 per cent) and Italy (7.9 per cent) impose higher business costs than the U.S. benchmark – but Japan (14.3 per cent) and Germany (16.8 per cent) impose the highest costs of them all.

 

KPMG's message here is not precisely the lullaby of the headline reports. Yes, Canada's corporate tax rates are lower than U.S. rates. They had better be lower. With one of the highest nominal corporate tax rates in the world, the U.S. nevertheless remains one of the most competitive countries in the world – perhaps the most competitive. Its high tax rates notwithstanding, the company says, the U.S. has experienced great gains in cost competitiveness in recent years. “Canada and Australia,” it says, “have both lost their previous cost advantages relative to the U.S.” And the depreciation of the U.S. dollar doesn't account for all of the erosion.

 

KPMG's conclusions aren't any more comforting for Canada, in fact, than the World Economic Forum's gloomy conclusions in its Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) for 2007-08. Published last October, the report concluded that the U.S. – “endowed with sophisticated and innovative companies operating in very efficient markets” – remains the world's most competitive economy. (The GCI Top 10 are, ranked in order: the U.S., Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Singapore, Japan, Britain and the Netherlands.) The GCI ranks Canada 13th, one notch lower than in its 2006-07 report. It puts the celebrated BRIC economies far down the list. It ranks Brazil in 72nd place, Russia in 58th place, India in 48th place and China in 34th place.

 

The World Economic Forum report lists the top “problematic factors” confronted in each of 131 countries. It says the U.S. and Canadian economies share the same three top impediments to doing business: (1) high tax rates; (2) cumbersome tax regulations; and (3) inefficient government bureaucracies. In this sense at least, it finds that governments themselves are the principal barrier to more efficient, more productive economies.

 

In another comprehensive report card exercise of the same kind, the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated the Total Tax Rates (TTR) that 175 countries impose on corporations. This illuminating report, Paying Taxes 2008: The Global Picture, concludes that corporate income tax rates, by themselves, account for only 37 per cent of the taxes that corporations actually pay. Expressing actual corporate taxes as a simple, straightforward percentage of corporate profits, it reveals that the honest-to-God corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 46.0 per cent; in Canada 43.0 per cent.

 

Corporate taxes at these rates are preposterous. Elsewhere in the world, they get more preposterous still. (Germany: 50.8 per cent. France: 66.3 per cent. Mexico: 51.2 per cent. Argentina: 112.9 per cent.) Only from this distorted perspective do Canada's corporate tax rates look remotely rational. Canada urgently needs more competitive edge. Mr. Flaherty is far from finished.

[internationalx]

My God, you guys are so pessimistic about the future of Montreal. Wow. Montreal needs to start acting with some ambition and vision and a desire to be as competitive as can be, exploiting all our assets to the fullest. That is how Montreal can be relevant in Canada and the world. Montreal's big problem is that it is effectively governed in another city: Quebec city. Unlike Toronto, Montreal is not the economic engine and the political capital; Quebec city doesn't know or very much care about the real needs of the metropolis. Confederation is always cited as why Montreal is stuck (which I don't agree with)... no one ever looks at the other side of the coin: Montreal is a city that simply gets a raw deal because it is controlled by another city. Among some of the issues: Why does Montreal not attract as many immigrants? Why don't we attract the right kind of immigrant? That is, highly educated and highly skilled. There are serious structural and policy issues that are NOT language related that have got to be looked at in Quebec.

 

And finally, nationalists in Quebec who have controlled the political discourse incessantly for the past 30-35 years have essentially practiced isolationism - stripping Montreal of its Canadian-relevance. I mean, what did you expect? Of course Montreal's status within the rest of Canada has shrunk.

 

On another note, reading about all this future glory for TO... Toronto shares the power in Canada with Calgary. In fact, a lot has shifted west to Alberta even from Toronto.

 

I for one believe that Canada is too small a country to many competing metropolises - Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal. For that reason, Toronto will never be the global phenom that most are predicting here. Sadly, Canada does not have a unified financial and political capital. Had the political capital not been moved to Ottawa, it is unlikely that Montreal would have ever been dethroned by Toronto as the financial capital and our city would have been a mega-metropolis. Montreal would have been a true metropolis like London, or Paris. I believe Toronto's golden era has passed: it was the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. Sure, it will continue to be the largest city, but what does that necessarily guarantee?

 

As the American empire continues to lose its relevance the Chinese empire rises, this should become more evident. Afterall, Montreal's downfall and Toronto's rise coincides with the shift from the UK being our main partner to the USA being our main partner.

[monctezuma]

Petit ménage du printemps, ce projet ne verra certainement pas le jour à court terme, ni à long terme. L'ONU semble avoir réglé ses problèmes à New-York.

 

Les images sont encore disponibles sur le site de cyberpresse.ca, les voici :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modifié 5 avril 2010 par monctezuma

[Habsfan]

Dommage. C'est toujours plaisant de rêver en grand!!

[pedepy]

pour ou contre, force d'admettre que ce projet aurait grandement retaper ce coin decrepit tout en solidifiant la stature internationale de la ville qui, faut bien se l'avouer, s'estompe a vue d'oeil ..

[ToxiK]

Si l'ONU en était venue à déménager, Toronto n'aurait pas accepté que ça lui échappe, surtout en faveur de Montréal...

 

Ces images nous démontre cependant tout le potentiel de ce secteur!

[theWestisDead]

My God, you guys are so pessimistic about the future of Montreal. Wow. Montreal needs to start acting with some ambition and vision and a desire to be as competitive as can be, exploiting all our assets to the fullest. That is how Montreal can be relevant in Canada and the world. Montreal's big problem is that it is effectively governed in another city: Quebec city. Unlike Toronto, Montreal is not the economic engine and the political capital; Quebec city doesn't know or very much care about the real needs of the metropolis. Confederation is always cited as why Montreal is stuck (which I don't agree with)... no one ever looks at the other side of the coin: Montreal is a city that simply gets a raw deal because it is controlled by another city. Among some of the issues: Why does Montreal not attract as many immigrants? Why don't we attract the right kind of immigrant? That is, highly educated and highly skilled. There are serious structural and policy issues that are NOT language related that have got to be looked at in Quebec.

 

And finally, nationalists in Quebec who have controlled the political discourse incessantly for the past 30-35 years have essentially practiced isolationism - stripping Montreal of its Canadian-relevance. I mean, what did you expect? Of course Montreal's status within the rest of Canada has shrunk.

 

On another note, reading about all this future glory for TO... Toronto shares the power in Canada with Calgary. In fact, a lot has shifted west to Alberta even from Toronto.

 

I for one believe that Canada is too small a country to many competing metropolises - Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal. For that reason, Toronto will never be the global phenom that most are predicting here. Sadly, Canada does not have a unified financial and political capital. Had the political capital not been moved to Ottawa, it is unlikely that Montreal would have ever been dethroned by Toronto as the financial capital and our city would have been a mega-metropolis. Montreal would have been a true metropolis like London, or Paris. I believe Toronto's golden era has passed: it was the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. Sure, it will continue to be the largest city, but what does that necessarily guarantee?

 

As the American empire continues to lose its relevance the Chinese empire rises, this should become more evident. Afterall, Montreal's downfall and Toronto's rise coincides with the shift from the UK being our main partner to the USA being our main partner.

 

I totally agree with you, Montreal has in essence been sabboaged by politics- Quebec politics and federal politics. It is terrible shame that the city's boom years of the 60s and 70s ended so abruptly and saw Toronto gain the status that rightfully should have been Montreal's. I am noticing a slight upswing in the city's direction as the MUHC has started construction and the rehabilitation of downtown continues with many infrastructure projects. Yet even munipal politics are to blame for many ills, as the giant bureaucracy of city hall prevents real decisons from taking place, the metro car contract is still undecided as is the tramway/metro extension issue. Hopefully the city can continue to build momentum and be at least half the city it could have been if politics had not gotten in the way.

[MontréalMartin]

Merci pour le lien, c'était très intéressant.

 

J'ai remarqué une chose qui différencie le Québec de l'Irlande. La Langue. Le fait qu'ils parlent anglais a grandement aidé l'Irelande à sortir de son trou.

 

De quelle façon?

[franktko]

On ne semble plus avoir les photos.

Pour les archives.
https://provencherroy.ca/fr/projet/montreal-international-cite-globale-urbanisme-institutionnel/