The Liberal leader says a Liberal government is going to raise taxes&#

[jdobbin]

Cutting $85B is not as hard as you make it out to be. Just depends on what you are willing to give up.

You can also end Medicare, EI, OAS, the military, the RCMP and all government operations and Canada would have the lowest taxes in the world!

[Hydraboss]

I just started to sneak a peek around the Fed website and the first thing I came across was this:

Performing Arts (2007)

$300,233,000 (million) net expenditures (after deducting operating revenues)

Cultural (2007)

$8,287,998,000 (billion) net expenditures

Let's see....that's $8.6 BILLION per year. Hmmm. That's one.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

$1,100,000,000 (billion)

Funding under the Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing programs

$9,300,000,000 (billion) in transfers

[[[[***Funny note here: Alberta paid $18,000,000,000 (billion) last year. Where'd the money go?]]]]

[Hydraboss]

You can also end Medicare, EI, OAS, the military, the RCMP and all government operations and Canada would have the lowest taxes in the world!

That's exactly my point. Surplus and deficit mean absolutely nothing. You can always cut whatever you have to in order to balance the books. The question is: What are you willing to give up? Raising taxes is the ONLY way to balance the books IF you're not willing to do without some pet project.

[jdobbin]

The question is: What are you willing to give up? Raising taxes is the ONLY way to balance the books IF you're not willing to do without some pet project.

I think we can do without assistance for the oil industry which runs in the billion. Seems a profitable industry ought to be able to be able to fund things on their own.

[Hydraboss]

I think we can do without assistance for the oil industry which runs in the billion. Seems a profitable industry ought to be able to be able to fund things on their own.

I can agree with that. But before we cut money to those industries that have a net financial benefit, let's start hacking the useless programs like Arts and Culture and specifically, the CBC. After all, it seems a "profitable" industry like broadcasting ought to be able to fund things on their own.

Right?

[jdobbin]

I can agree with that. But before we cut money to those industries that have a net financial benefit, let's start hacking the useless programs like Arts and Culture and specifically, the CBC.

I have already said the CBC should receive no direct tax money.

There are no end of cuts that can be proposed. We could end all government spending and all taxes. Don't assume there won't be a cost to that though.

[Hydraboss]

Most prominently, there would be a political cost no matter which way they go. You and I don't seem to have an arguement here, but I'm simply pointing out that those who say that tax increases are the "only way" to deal with a deficit are 100% wrong.

[Smallc]

Don't forget that there are 33 000 000 people in this country. What you think is okay to cut isn't always so. I would never support cuts to equalization or the CBC. I've recently come to understand the value of cultural funding to the Canadian identity as well. As I have said before, a country isn't all about dollars and cents. We need to balance the budget. I'm sure there are efficiencies to be found without cutting the programs that many Canadians want...I'm just not sure if the efficiencies will be great enough.

[jdobbin]

Most prominently, there would be a political cost no matter which way they go. You and I don't seem to have an arguement here, but I'm simply pointing out that those who say that tax increases are the "only way" to deal with a deficit are 100% wrong.

I think it might be more than a political cost. There would be an economic one as well.

Manitoba used to have very low taxes in the 1950s. We also used to have dirt roads, no protection from flooding, high rates of poverty, lower lifespans and higher of illiteracy. Those are major economic as well as social costs.

[Alta4ever]

I have already said the CBC should receive no direct tax money.

you have said it but the liberal party hasn't.

[Alta4ever]

Manitoba used to have very low taxes in the 1950s, no protection from flooding,

Why should the province pay for those who deem it acceptable to build houses on a flood plain next to a river that floods to some extent almost every year?

[jdobbin]

you have said it but the liberal party hasn't.

And the Tory party hasn't.

[jdobbin]

Why should the province pay for those who deem it acceptable to build houses on a flood plain next to a river that floods to some extent almost every year?

Because the economic benefits outweigh the detriments?

Might as well ask why places in tornado alley or along Texas and Florida deserve expensive government satellites to tell them bad weather is coming?

[Alta4ever]

Because the economic benefits outweigh the detriments?

I see it more important to provide a job to someone to have to repair the home every year.

[jdobbin]

I see it more important to provide a job to someone to have to repair the home every year.

I don't know what you mean.

[Alta4ever]

And the Tory party hasn't.

A strong message was sent by not giving into the funding demands of the CBC over the last month.

[Smallc]

Why should the province pay for those who deem it acceptable to build houses on a flood plain next to a river that floods to some extent almost every year?

Considering that over 90% of Manitoba's population lives in a flood plain of some kind.....unless you think that we should just abandon the red river valley and the assiniboine river valley and....

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

A strong message was sent by not giving into the funding demands of the CBC over the last month.

Yeah...like when they agreed to restore the $60M in supplemental funding to the CBC...

[jdobbin]

A strong message was sent by not giving into the funding demands of the CBC over the last month.

They also increased CBC money since they got in office.

[Hydraboss]

Don't forget that there are 33 000 000 people in this country. What you think is okay to cut isn't always so. I would never support cuts to equalization or the CBC. I've recently come to understand the value of cultural funding to the Canadian identity as well. As I have said before, a country isn't all about dollars and cents. We need to balance the budget. I'm sure there are efficiencies to be found without cutting the programs that many Canadians want...I'm just not sure if the efficiencies will be great enough.

Of course you support equalization theft payments. You live in a province that has always received them and therefore directly benefit. How're you enjoying my money????

These differences in spending priorities are exactly why the equalization must end. Alberta can afford to support itself and it's financial needs and wants, but it can't afford to continually pay for the rest of the country to have anything more than the basics. These payments were designed for that purpose, but if you look at the numbers from last year Alberta paid $18,000,000,000 into equalization and yet the federal government only paid out $9.3 billion. The rest went into general revenue.

You and I have disagreed on this before. Canada is only about dollars and cents because Canada is nothing more than an idea of a country. We are more like the EU in that it is strictly a financial arrangement; not a joint identity. Alberta has more in common with Montana than it ever has or will have with Ontario or the east coast. The true divisions in the country run North-South not East-West.

The Convenient Canadian's idea of raising taxes will resonate with those areas of the country that pay less tax already (the receivers of Alberta's money) and this year that list will include Ontario. It will further piss off those of us in the West that work and pay taxes, but that won't matter because we will heading back to the same-old same-old Liberal antics of "screw the west, we'll take the rest".

Edited April 16, 2009 by Hydraboss

[Smallc]

Of course you support equalization theft payments. You live in a province that has always received them and therefore directly benefit. How're you enjoying my money????

I would support it no matter where I live, as many people in Ontario support it and always have supported it.

These differences in spending priorities are exactly why the equalization must end. Alberta can afford to support itself and it's financial needs and wants, but it can't afford to continually pay for the rest of the country to have anything more than the basics. These payments were designed for that purpose, but if you look at the numbers from last year Alberta paid $18,000,000,000 into equalization and yet the federal government only paid out $9.3 billion. The rest went into general revenue.

Alberta has no way of knowing how much was paid into equalization because the program isn't funded that way. The equalization program is paid out of general revenues, just like almost every other program. Also, the payments are not designed for what you think and I encourage you to read the section on Equalization in the Constitution. Alberta probably sent $18B to Ottawa, yes, but that goes into general operating revenue just as the tax money sent from British Columbia and Manitoba does. You do not send $18B to equalization and if someone told you that, they're lying.

Oh, and last year, Equalization paid out $13.5B, the Offshore Accords paid out $663M, and the Territorial Financing Formula paid out $2.3B. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

You and I have disagreed on this before. Canada is only about dollars and cents because Canada is nothing more than an idea of a country. We are more like the EU in that it is strictly a financial arrangement; not a joint identity. Alberta has more in common with Montana than it ever has or will have with Ontario or the east coast. The true divisions in the country run North-South not East-West.

A country is always an idea....and more. Just because you feel no nationalism or patriotism doesn't mean that your way is right. There are many Canadians that love this country and many others that are more than happy to live here. Your fundamental misunderstanding about Canada is disturbing. Oh, and I don't think you would like to be linked up to Montana seeing as they are one of the poorest states in the union.

those of us in the West that work and pay taxes,

Those of you in the west that are arrogant enough to think you are the only ones that work and pay taxes....are rather uninformed....to say the least.

[Moonbox]

And now we have a massive (under taxation) deficit....pretty neat hey?

We don't have under taxation. We have over-spending. Reduce spending to get rid of deficits. Harper blew it on that note. Fix the problem, don't make it worse by increasing taxes. Ignatieff should be saying spending cuts are needed badly, not that we need tax hikes.

Harper and Martin spent the money, now lets see someone claw it back and bring us back to Chretien level spending.

[Smallc]

We don't have under taxation. We have over-spending.

No no, that game can't be played. We either had over taxation then, and under taxation now, or under spending then, and over spending now. If we keep saying...oh, we have a surplus...taxes are too high, lets cut them....oh, now we have a deficit...spending is too high, lets cut it....and then, oh we have a surplus....taxes are too high, lets cut them....until we have no services left.

We can't again do to the services of this country what we did in the past. Some of them have not completely recovered yet and to cut them now would set us back a long time. Are there some things that can go? Probably, and we should find them and cut them if they aren't working. We should find efficiencies in government. But we can't go on a continual lower taxes cut spending cycle.

A couple of months ago I heard that Canadians now pay less tax than they did in 1955. If they have to be raised a small amount in order to fix the problem (and I mean a small amount) then I'm ok with that...if we have to cut spending a small amount and we can find these efficiencies, then I'm ok with that....I'm not ok with taking another hatchet to government services in this country. We can never go back to Chretien level spending. Ther are more people, older people, and there is a much larger economy. We can hold spending growth to inflation...but we can't go backwards.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

We don't have under taxation. We have over-spending. Reduce spending to get rid of deficits. Harper blew it on that note. Fix the problem, don't make it worse by increasing taxes. Ignatieff should be saying spending cuts are needed badly, not that we need tax hikes.

Harper and Martin spent the money, now lets see someone claw it back and bring us back to Chretien level spending.

But if Ignatieff said that spending cuts were need and push heavily for them, it would give the conservatives chance to implemet policy out of the Policy manual that the small c's are just itching to see brought forward.

[ToadBrother]

Any civil servant who's job is duplicated because of the federal government infringing on provincial jursidiction. Not to mention those who look after the federal long gun registry and a whole host of others.

So perhaps you could provide a list of departments, along with the expected savings. Right?