CPCFTW

Here's the problem. So many people seem to think public sector jobs are equivalent to private sector jobs. Here's a microcosm that might help you to better understand: 100 people in an economy. 80 of them work in the auto sector making 100k each. The government taxes them at a 20% flat tax rate, yielding $1.6M in tax revenue. Of the remaining 20 people, 10 remain unemployed and get 20k of welfare each ($200k), the other 10 are the administration of the government and get $140k each ($1.4M). You could pretend that those 10 government officials are taxpayers and pay them $175k each then deduct 20% of that ($35k) to give them an after-tax income of $140k again. But really 100% of their income in either scenario is derived from the private sector. What are the budget implications? In scenario one you have $1.6M in revenue and $1.6M in expenditures. In scenario two you have $1.95M in revenue ($1.6 from private + $0.35 from public) and $1.95M in expenditures ($200k welfare, $1.75M to government administration). So whether or not government workers pay taxes, there is no effect to the government's budget balance (assuming same levels of after-tax income). Now, under scenario 1, what happens if you cut 9 those government workers out of the equation? You're left with a $1.6M to distribute among 19 unemployed people and the 1 government worker. The 1 worker makes 140k, so you have 1.46M remaining for the 19 unemployed people. You can leave welfare at 20k and have a budget surplus of $1.08M (which can be used to pay off debt). Or if you want to reduce inequality you can raise welfare to 20k + 1.08M/19 = 76k. Or if you want to put more after-tax income into worker's pockets, you can cut taxes such that you only have 520K (20k x 19 + 140k) in revenue. That means cutting taxes on the private sector from 20% to 6.5% so each of the 80 workers will be taking home 93.5k instead of 80 (+13.5k) of after-tax income. The point is that the government should not be holding onto jobs to support the economy. Public sector jobs should be minimized because it is the private sector that pays for them all. The argument that government services may be reduced or lost is the only legitimate argument. The argument that we will create 100k unemployed people and thus weaken the economy is untrue.

So there will be more students per teacher and there will be some disruptive students that don't get their own private taxpayer-funded teachers any more. So basically teachers have to work harder. Isn't that what I said?

The idea is to have the remaining 1mil public sector workers be 10% more productive. Kind of how the private sector trims fat to increase productivity when there are budgetary issues. It might be a new concept to you if you work in the public sector though.

Yes let's get specific. Hudak isn't planning to fire 100,000 people. He is planning to reduce the public sector workforce by 100,000 people mostly through attrition.

We can't have a waffler can we? Unless it's a liberal I suppose.

The other 500k jobs are created from the status quo, not from "measures the Liberals already have in place". The population of Ontario is projected to increase by 1mil in the next 8 years and the 500k jobs would be created through the natural expansion of the economy, not because of the Liberals. Thought I'd correct you on this since you've repeated this misconception several times now.

PCs would have the first chance of forming govt anyway so they may just form a coalition with the NDP by backing off the 100k public sector cuts and making some small spending commitments. NDP could say they successfully secured a moderate government with checks to its extreme views and ousted a corrupt government.

Harper got 40% of the vote. This "snapshot" shows that it's not a stretch to assume 1/6th of the remaining 60% would have voted for the CPC as a 2nd choice... leading to over 50% support of Harper. So it was unfair of the lefties led by Brigette Depape to attempt to undermine the democratically elected government. A lot of lefties seem to act like democracy only works if it elects who they want in power... if not then the system is broken and we have to occupy parks and throw faeces at police officers!

Yes it's interesting in that it completely discredits the movement behind Brigette Pape and her similar like-minded lefties who claimed that Harper shouldn't be PM because the "left" received a majority of the vote. The movement insisted that the NDP and Liberals all voted against Harper so he didn't deserve to be PM. Everyone with half a brain insisted that an NDP or Liberal voter would not have automatically voted for the other "left" party, but that didn't stop the hivemind lefties from insisting Harper's mandate was illegitimate. Seems like it's pretty evident that Brigette was wrong. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2011/06/08/why_i_did_it_senate_page_explains_her_throne_speech_protest.html

Well it was hyperbole but you think there's only 800k civil servants in Canada? There's a 3.6M public sector employee overclass in Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140509/t140509a002-eng.htm There's 800k teachers (and only approx 7mil students!) We have 1 teacher for every 8.75 students. http://www42.statcan.gc.ca/smr08/2013/smr08_177_2013-eng.htm Anyway lets do some more math. Lets say each paid sick day costs an average of $300. Lets say we reduce the average sick day taken by the public sector by 5 days. We save 3.6M x $300 x 5 = $5B per year. Now the funny little thing that you forgot in your calculation is that subways take years to build. We could began construction today and complete construction of a 5 station subway line in each of those 5 cities in just 5 years ($25B cost over 5 years). I guess maybe it wasn't hyperbole! Coincidentally, the public sector takes an average of 5 paid sick days more than the private sector http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/public-servants-take-average-of-11-5-paid-sick-days-a-year-watchdog-finds-1.1673262. So basically public sector paid sick days are costing us one 5 station subway line in each major city every 5 years. We could have by far the best public transit in the world if our public sector weren't so sickly!

The thing that needs to be recognized is that infrastructure spending accounts for a fraction of the taxes we pay.. If we want better infrastructure we could literally just freeze public servant wages for a couple years, or reduce health transfers marginally, or allow for a couple extra students per teacher, and generate billions. The problem, as Boges pointed out, isn't revenue to pay for infrastructure. The problem is that every other category of spending is untouchable to the left. It's like saying you can't afford to eat dinner because you have to drive a BMW X5 instead of an X3.

This. Giving public servants and teachers 5 less bankable sick days per year would probably save us enough to build a new subway in every major city.

Here's a tough one for the lefty math majors in here. Q: Ontario currently has a population of 11,313,900 and has an employment rate of 61.2%, equalling approximately 6,920,000 employed Ontarians. In 8 years Ontario will have a population of approximately 12,313,900. What employment rate would adding 1mil jobs yield? A: (6,920,000 + 1,000,000) / 12,313,900 = 64% 64% is 5% lower than the AB employment rate, 3% lower than the SK employment rate, and equivalent to the MB employment rate. Truly a difficult math question!

Ontario is projected to grow by over 1M in 8 years. With Ontario's 61% employment rate that's over 600k jobs. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table1.html Don't be dense. Edit: FYI I posted this twice in comments section of The Star but it was deleted both times. So unbiased!

Yes I have nothing against encouraging employers to offer a pension plan... Maybe through tax credits? I have issue with forcing employers to offer a pension plan and forcing workers to participate. That's nice but we're in Canada. The public sector shouldn't be treated like Europeans while everyone else slaves away like north Americans to provide them with that luxury. Harper's cracking down on seasonal ei applicants.

There is CPP/OAS/gis and for retirement teachers would have 13% more of their income to spend on rrsps like the rest of the private sector. They'd also be taxed less since we wouldn't need to tax the hell out if everyone to pay for education. If the private sector won't give arts grads more than 30k-40k and 10 vacation days for an entry level job they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to do it. More vacation days would be earned as the teacher gained experience and we weeded out the bad teachers. And they can work another job during the summer like anyone else with a seasonal job.

Yes it's a complex system which is minimally affected by Ontario's spending increases. It's not a stretch to assume revenues would be similar in just 5 years whether we gave teachers a 5% raise per year or froze their wages. Take my word for it since you have admitted you don't understand economics.

Just Google the budget and year

Federal govt revenues (+26%) have increased at a greater rate than Ontario revenues (+23%) despite all the "revenue tools" implemented by Ontario and all the tax cuts implemented by the feds. Hate to burst your arts degree pseudo-economics bubble.

Based on the budget. 2009 expenditures were 108B. 2014 revenues are 118B.

If Wynne/McGuinty had the same spending restraint since 2009 Ontario would have a $10B surplus.

It's a good reference.. It shows that Ontario's otpp contributions cost us almost $1B per year... Almost 10% of our deficit.

Exactly. Federal expenditures haven't increased since 2009. In 2009 Ontario expenditures were 97B and Wynne's budget has 127B in expenditures. A 30% increase in spending! Keep in mind 97B was already a 10% increase from 2007 budget spending of 88B. So the liberals have increased spending by 44% since 2007. The feds have increased spending just 25% in that timeframe with almost all of the increase occurring when the opposition threatened to topple the government unless there was significant stimulus spending.

I'll be happy when they're compensated similarly to arts grads in the private sector. E.g. 30-40k starting salary. Minimal job security (only the best teachers should survive and thrive). 3-5 non-bankable sick days and 10 vacation days with no pension. Teachers college can go to.. I don't think it adds any value. I have the same opinion of other public sector jobs including police.

Yes my mind is changed because there is an expectation of unionized employees working during the summer.. And if they don't I'm sure the union will let them be fired! /sarcasmI'm very glad the bankable sick days are gone but there's a lot more cutting to be done before I'm happy. Edit: your link says teachers still have 3 bankable sick days?