Parliamentary Budget Officer tells it like it is

[Molly]

It's specious to argue in favor of tax cuts while spending is increasing by asking whether you or the government is better qualified to spend your money.

The government IS spending our money. I'd rather they were taking cash from our wallets to cover what is needed, instead of running up the credit cards, ignoring the minimum payments, and pretending it won't cost us anything.

-----------

We assemble governments so we can accomplish things collectively that are unlikely to be done privately. (Someone rural should know that even more than others, since so many things must be addressed locally, because scale demands so much more personal involvement in collective action in order to have minimum basic services.) Waiting for 'market forces' to provide those services can result in a long, long, long wait.

Businesspeople should also know that sometimes you borrow money to make money (avoid losing it) - that ignoring a NEED until you have the cash in hand can cost you the whole enterprise. Don't seed, and you don't harvest.

And a businessperson should also know that if you are borrowing money, then you darned well better be spending it on something that you can't do without, or that will make you money in the long run. Borrowing it, dividing it up among the family members, without accompanying guidelines, and hoping that some of it will be spent on something useful is not much of a business plan.

[blueblood]

Off topic nonsense but this really is ridiculous.

Granted I'm not in retail. I'm in the professional services business.

Every year I grade my clients from A to F (based on things like total billings, how quickly they pay their bill, mark up/down on the file, complexity/interesting work, risk (audit/tax work), do I like dealing with the client, do my staff like dealing with the client, is the client ethical or a sleazebag etc).

Those who are F's I try to bring them up to at least a C+ within two years (the sleazebags I try to fire as soon as it becomes obvious - so far only two out of several hundred in the past few years).

After that, the client is no longer "right."

The client, and myself, obviously are not meeting each others needs so I find a way to end the relationship so they can find someone to meet their needs and so that I can spend more time helping my A and B clients (or spend more time with the wife, for that matter).

That is the way any business should be doing business - focus on the customers you want and let the one's you don't want go somewhere else.

Businesses that spend their time/resources sucking up to the 2-10% of "right" clients are missing the opportunity of up selling to the remaining 90-98% of excellent/good/decent clients.

And that's just wrong.

At the end of the day in spite of bad customers, at the end of the day they know how best to spend their money and what they want. It's the same with government and voters. If some customers of yours don't like your methods they will go elsewhere, same with political parties. However, the success of a business determines how well they satisfy their customers needs, in your case just like with political parties, they will cater to what the biggest piece of the pie wants.

You aren't wrong, your describing how governments and business's cater to the majority of their clients. Customers and voters know what to do with their votes and money. Parties and business's of course assume they aren't all things to all people and will take losses.

Lots of people wanted extremely low cost shopping with a favorable refund policy, they got Walmart. Others want to drop 400 dollars on pants to be fashionable and say they're wearing 400 dollar pants, they got Harry Rosen.

[Argus]

And Harper was telling us he would never accept a deficit. So let me get this straight you are saying the left was right and Haprer lied. Welcome to the new left.

More like the Left are hypocrites - as this is exactly what you were screaming for the government to do.

Harper is simply politically expedient.

[Argus]

Welcome to a new era for the PBO.

It will be a short era. Expect Page to be gone within the year.

[Argus]

What? They owe any stability to Paul Martin. The fact that Flaherty is now admitting he lied doesn't boost his credibility and for an economist Harper's as dumb as a post. Talk about flip flop. From our economy's fine to

Didn't I ask you for a cite for Harper saying the economy is fine? Weren't you going to find that for me?

[ToadBrother]

More like the Left are hypocrites - as this is exactly what you were screaming for the government to do.

Harper is simply politically expedient.

Political expediency is, by definition, a form of hypocrisy.

[Argus]

Canadians weren't drowning under the Liberals. Small tax cuts over time along with moderate spending increases would have insured continued fiscal stability. Now, we're going to add another $50 - 100B to the debt. We're erasing almost everything we've achieved in that regard.

Let me get this straight.... if the Liberals had stayed in power, the worldwide economic recession would never have happened, and we would not have had any need for any kind of stimulus package. Is that basically what you're saying?

[Argus]

Funny thing about a western nation, the governments job is to protect those who can't protect themselves.

No, that's not their job. Their job is to govern the country as best they can on behalf of the majority of their citizenry.

The people are not always right in this situation. If the people want lynch black people and the government makes that against the law the people are not right.

If people want to lynch black people then they will elect politicians to change the law which will allow them to lynch black people. How complex do you think this is?

If the people want slaves to work for them and make them rich and government makes laws against that, again the people are wrong and the government is right.

And then the people will vote those people out and vote in the politicians who believe in slavery.

I think the fundamental difference here is the idea is that government first has the responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves then has to look to the people to set policy.

That is your idea. That is not what goverment is for. Government is to look after the nation as a whole, which means ensuring business has a profitable work environment in order to provide jobs for people, that infrastructure is taken care of, and that the barbarians are kept away from the gates.

[Argus]

I don't look at it as a punishment. I look at it as a shared duty we have as a society. Yes, we have to have personal success, but we also have to be successful as a whole. Some people need help. Some people can't do the things that others can. I don't see helping them as punishment.

So the guy who studies hard in school, works hard, gets a good job, works hard, gets promoted, and makes a good salary gets taxed, and the taxes go to the guy who goofed off at school, did drugs, dropped out, couldn't hold a job because he was a slacker who never showed up on time, and likes to party.

That's perfectly reasonable.

[Argus]

Again I call the right wing posters of this board liars. Public opinion was against gay marriage at the time.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/...age-050410.html

How to explain polls to simple people....

Let me suggest that 1/3 of the population is quite conservative, and so, of course, are opposed to gay marriage. Who are these people going to vote for? They sure aren't going to vote Liberal, no matter what they say or do. Therefore, the Liberals would not need to pay much attention to their wishes. On the other hand, of people who were or were likely to be Liberal voters, the majority were in favour of gay marriage. It was to them the Liberals were playing, not only in instituting gay marriage, but in trumpeting this as a sign of their liberalism, and using it as a weapon to decry the Tories as evil right wing anti-gay homophibic hitler types.

[punked]

No, that's not their job. Their job is to govern the country as best they can on behalf of the majority of their citizenry.

If people want to lynch black people then they will elect politicians to change the law which will allow them to lynch black people. How complex do you think this is?

And then the people will vote those people out and vote in the politicians who believe in slavery.

That is your idea. That is not what goverment is for. Government is to look after the nation as a whole, which means ensuring business has a profitable work environment in order to provide jobs for people, that infrastructure is taken care of, and that the barbarians are kept away from the gates.

See we can argue about this but I am from the Rawls school of thought. There are certain liberties which are inherent and right. You apparently from the school of thought that whatever the majority says goes.

[ToadBrother]

So the guy who studies hard in school, works hard, gets a good job, works hard, gets promoted, and makes a good salary gets taxed, and the taxes go to the guy who goofed off at school, did drugs, dropped out, couldn't hold a job because he was a slacker who never showed up on time, and likes to party.

That's perfectly reasonable.

That's an extreme oversimplification. The guy who studied hard in school is likely going to a school that, one way or the other, is at least partially being funded by the taxpayer. The good job he gets is only possible because we live in a society of law and order, which is supported by tax dollars. He, in turn, is obligated to pay taxes, and because we live in a democracy, he doesn't have some sort of veto over how those taxes are spent, rather he gets a vote.

Is taxation always fair? No, it's not, but this idea that what you make belongs entirely to you, and that you're own debt to society is marginal and shouldn't factor into it is also grossly inaccurate.

[Argus]

Political expediency is, by definition, a form of hypocrisy.

It can be, but this isn't a good example of that.

Ie, Harper says he is against deficits, and won't run one. I think that was probably a true belief. Ie, that would be his preference. Along comes this massive recession, well... things change.

But to be screaming that the government should be brought down because it's not offering up a massive economic stimulous package one month, then complain that the government is offering up a massive stimulous package which will lead us into deficit is pretty damned up-front hypocritcal.

You want an example of how political expedience leads to hypocrisy? The Tories have provided examples, going back some time. They're not that difficult to find. Official Bilingualism, for example, is largely a waste of time and money. Oh it has a few practical points - ie, people should be able to get service from the federal government in their own language. But 90% of it is pure waste and politics and the Reform party and Alliance clearly enunciated that. Now, of course, in desperate hopes of Quebec votes, the Tories have wholeheartedly embraced the current vision of Official Bilingualism without reservation.

[ToadBrother]

It can be, but this isn't a good example of that.

Ie, Harper says he is against deficits, and won't run one. I think that was probably a true belief. Ie, that would be his preference. Along comes this massive recession, well... things change.

What you're saying is that Harper is being pragmatic. I would agree with that. Political expediency is about doing something you've stated you're against simply because it furthers other goals. Being pragmatic is about not being chained so much to an ideology that you can't alter course if the situation requires it.

But to be screaming that the government should be brought down because it's not offering up a massive economic stimulous package one month, then complain that the government is offering up a massive stimulous package which will lead us into deficit is pretty damned up-front hypocritcal.

I'll agree, with the caveat that if the Tories were in Opposition, they'd be saying precisely the same thing the Opposition is saying. Fundamentally, our political system demands that the Opposition behave, to some extent, hypocritically. It's not necessarily bad. The Opposition isn't there to be the Government's cheerleader, but rather to hold its feet to the fire.

You want an example of how political expedience leads to hypocrisy? The Tories have provided examples, going back some time. They're not that difficult to find. Official Bilingualism, for example, is largely a waste of time and money. Oh it has a few practical points - ie, people should be able to get service from the federal government in their own language. But 90% of it is pure waste and politics and the Reform party and Alliance clearly enunciated that. Now, of course, in desperate hopes of Quebec votes, the Tories have wholeheartedly embraced the current vision of Official Bilingualism without reservation.

The way you frame it, it's expediency. From Harper's point of view, bilingualism is too entrenched to even think about ending. It's much the same as abortion or gay marriage, they're there, and starting a political war over trying to get rid of them simply isn't worth the damage it would cause.

[msj]

At the end of the day in spite of bad customers, at the end of the day they know how best to spend their money and what they want. It's the same with government and voters. If some customers of yours don't like your methods they will go elsewhere, same with political parties. However, the success of a business determines how well they satisfy their customers needs, in your case just like with political parties, they will cater to what the biggest piece of the pie wants.

You aren't wrong, your describing how governments and business's cater to the majority of their clients. Customers and voters know what to do with their votes and money. Parties and business's of course assume they aren't all things to all people and will take losses.

Sure clients may think they know the best way to spend their money but it doesn't mean they are right or that the business person is wrong.

When I have the odd client try to convince me to do something that is evasive (i.e. illegal) then there is no doubt that he is wrong and I drop him (extreme case, granted). Many times I have tax clients who think they know what the tax policy is but they haven't a clue and, yes, they are wrong too (although most of the time I am able to show them what the right policy is).

But you make it seem like sucking up to the client is the only way.

If I don't like my clients methods then I either try to change them (make them into better clients) or I fire them (if I'm not lucky enough to have them fire me first).

Just like clients can go elsewhere, I can seek business from others - I know what to do with my time and my staff's time and if a client is consistently in the F category then I know enough to not let that client waste our time.

Edited January 22, 2009 by msj

[Argus]

See we can argue about this but I am from the Rawls school of thought. There are certain liberties which are inherent and right. You apparently from the school of thought that whatever the majority says goes.

I'm from the school of reality. I agree there are certain rights which are inherent and morally proper to uphold. I am merely pointing out that laws can be changed by the will of the majority. Even the interpretation of those laws is easily shifted by simply appointing people with different opinions to the courts. The US constitution has not changed since the US SC said slavery was perfectly fine by it.

[punked]

I'm from the school of reality. I agree there are certain rights which are inherent and morally proper to uphold. I am merely pointing out that laws can be changed by the will of the majority. Even the interpretation of those laws is easily shifted by simply appointing people with different opinions to the courts. The US constitution has not changed since the US SC said slavery was perfectly fine by it.

But that isn't what has happened with the biggest decisions in the US and some what in Canada. Civil rights was unpopular, the same day LBJ signed the document a vote for non discrimantion on housing was shoot down in California, the largest population and a very liberal state, by more then 2 to 1. The majority were against it however a very strong minority were for it. The majority rule on things like a budget and laws but basic human rights is not a majority decision.

[DrGreenthumb]

I do agree that a certain amount of social responsibility should be allowed to help those in need but when is it enough? Can government continue to bleed us dry forever, taking more and more? Surely there must come a point when enough is enough and personal responsibility comes into the equation, right?

I agree that we have to stop taking money from taxpayers for every special interest group that wants some. I suggest we start by removing the tax deduction on church donations. I'm tired of having to fund special interest groups like the catholic church.

[blueblood]

I agree that we have to stop taking money from taxpayers for every special interest group that wants some. I suggest we start by removing the tax deduction on church donations. I'm tired of having to fund special interest groups like the catholic church.

Yes, lets remove tax deductions on charitable donations, lets punish charities for existing. Lets punish those who give to charities!!! You are not funding the catholic church by having Mr. Canada's collection money being written off in taxes. You can however bitch about your property taxes going to catholic school divisions. I find it funny that you piss and moan about the poor people when Mr. Canada by giving church donations is ensuring far more of his money goes to poor people than it would have been if it would have went to taxes.

Taxing donations screws over their recipients and their donors at the same time. If the donors are going to be taxed there is less incentive to donate and less donations. Less donations result in charities getting the short end of the stick, which means people are worse off.

Typical socialist venom, governments know how to spend money better than I do. Congrats, that new batch of weed must be magical because that is one of the most brainless posts on the board.

[ToadBrother]

I'm from the school of reality. I agree there are certain rights which are inherent and morally proper to uphold. I am merely pointing out that laws can be changed by the will of the majority. Even the interpretation of those laws is easily shifted by simply appointing people with different opinions to the courts. The US constitution has not changed since the US SC said slavery was perfectly fine by it.

The US Constitution entrenched slavery, and at the same left its regulation to the individual states. The Supreme Court never said slavery was okay, because, as a constitutional arrangement, it had no power one way or the other. What SCOTUS did, in cases like the Dredd Scott case, is create situations intolerable to anti-slavery states where slaveowners, through the Commerce clause, could pursue escaped slaves through their territory.

And, ultimately, the 13th Amendment banned slavery, but, you're right to the extent that the ex-slave states, once they had regained full status, went about undermining the rights of citizenship that the former slaves were supposed to enjoy. However, that was not a failing of the Constitution, that was a failing of the Federal government to push Reconstruction far enough to make sure that former slaves were protected.

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes, lets remove tax deductions on charitable donations, lets punish charities for existing. Lets punish those who give to charities!!! You are not funding the catholic church by having Mr. Canada's collection money being written off in taxes. You can however bitch about your property taxes going to catholic school divisions. I find it funny that you piss and moan about the poor people when Mr. Canada by giving church donations is ensuring far more of his money goes to poor people than it would have been if it would have went to taxes.

Taxing donations screws over their recipients and their donors at the same time. If the donors are going to be taxed there is less incentive to donate and less donations. Less donations result in charities getting the short end of the stick, which means people are worse off.

Typical socialist venom, governments know how to spend money better than I do. Congrats, that new batch of weed must be magical because that is one of the most brainless posts on the board.

You must be pretty drunk if you think I'm seriously suggesting that we remove the tax deduction from churches. I donated 1000 dollars to my church this year. I was just pointing out how stupid it is to complain about special interest groups or the disadvantaged getting some of our tax money, but supporting certain OTHER special interest groups(churches) getting special tax treatment. I'd rather see government deal directly with issues like poverty than let people like Mr Canada decide who is deserving of taxpayers help. If you are going to call less than 2 bucks per vote political party welfare then a tax deduction for political donations is even worse. A tax deduction on political donations gives an unfair welfare advantage to parties whose members are wealthy enough to donate. That said I gladly accepted the tax deduction for donating the maximum allowable to the NDP last year.

You can go back to getting drunk now, we all know that if you have ever had a beer you an addict who can't control himself and therefore must be completely hammered whenever you post here. That's why we forgive you your stupidity, we know it is just part of your disease.

[Mr.Canada]

We are one of the highest taxed first world country in the world, second only to Norway. We pay too much taxes as it is and provide too much services as it is. We need to scale back a lot of services, enough to have a flat tax of 5% throughout the country and much reduced income taxes. If people want services they can pay for it themselves or get corporate or Church sponsorship.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[blueblood]

You must be pretty drunk if you think I'm seriously suggesting that we remove the tax deduction from churches. I donated 1000 dollars to my church this year. I was just pointing out how stupid it is to complain about special interest groups or the disadvantaged getting some of our tax money, but supporting certain OTHER special interest groups(churches) getting special tax treatment. I'd rather see government deal directly with issues like poverty than let people like Mr Canada decide who is deserving of taxpayers help. If you are going to call less than 2 bucks per vote political party welfare then a tax deduction for political donations is even worse. A tax deduction on political donations gives an unfair welfare advantage to parties whose members are wealthy enough to donate. That said I gladly accepted the tax deduction for donating the maximum allowable to the NDP last year.

You can go back to getting drunk now, we all know that if you have ever had a beer you an addict who can't control himself and therefore must be completely hammered whenever you post here. That's why we forgive you your stupidity, we know it is just part of your disease.

Sorry Bub, don't drink. You can keep getting high and "enlightening" us with why punishing success is the gateway to utopia.

QUOTE(DrGreenthumb @ Jan 23 2009, 08:13 AM)

I agree that we have to stop taking money from taxpayers for every special interest group that wants some. I suggest we start by removing the tax deduction on church donations. I'm tired of having to fund special interest groups like the catholic church.

You posted it, not me. I call it like I see it. Pretty sure all charities including churches get the same tax treatment. Unless you want to complain about the fact that churches and other charities do lots of work giving money to the poor you can have at it.

A tax deduction on political parties donation is not welfare because said person is making a choice to donate their money, churches, charities, local fundraisers and political parties all fall into this category. The 2$ is welfare because it is forcibly taken from Canadians and that money can be going to other places than political parties. If I want to fund a political party, I'll donate myself, not have my money forcibly taken from me. If the NDP want money, than they can enact policies that are more friendly to people who have money to donate. It's the NDP's fault it can't get money and nobody else's.

[Molly]

If you are so opposed to welfare for political parties, I hope that we may rest assured that you do not claim a deduction for your political donations-- so as to avoid forcibly taking money from the rest of us.

[Mr.Canada]

If you are so opposed to welfare for political parties, I hope that we may rest assured that you do not claim a deduction for your political donations-- so as to avoid forcibly taking money from the rest of us.

Doesn't effect you at all.