Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 I'm not hoping that the economy will grow, I know that it will. I'm not hoping the dollar will stay high (although it probably will), I'm hoping it's the exact opposite. The government won't stay in deficit. Even if it does for a few years, we will still have the best position of any G8 country. There is nothing to worry about from this deficit, even if it is undesirable. It's also worth noting that the government gets much of the money back in taxes and that much of the money being spent is in fact is investment in the future (in the form of transportation and knowledge infrastructure), and much of the money will come back in tax revenue anyway. You are foolish to believe that the money now being spent will ever come back. It is gone dude. The only thing that remains is the debt. The fools in government don't even try to pay it off and the constant spending only adds to that total which requires billions of tax dollars just to make the interest payments on a principle that will never be repaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMP Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 They aren't indicators of much really. As a percentage of our GDP, the debt is now very small and will remain that way. As long as we can keep the service charges to a reasonable level and we have a plan to get out of deficit, we'll be fine Really, and what about the debt that is still there from many other years of government spending. When is that going to get paid off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) You are foolish to believe that the money now being spent will ever come back. Money always comes back to the government. Case in point: In Manitoba, we're building a new football stadium. The provincial government is providing just over $20M and they will get just under $20M back in taxes through the construction of the $140M facility. I think that the federal numbers for the same project are $15M spent and $7M recovered in taxes. Edited July 15, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMP Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Money always comes back to the government. Case in point: In Manitoba, we're building a new football stadium. The provincial government is providing just over $20M and they will get just under $20M back in taxes through the construction of the $140M facility. So when is all the debt coming back?... it's been like what since Trudeau years since we've entered the debt zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Really, and what about the debt that is still there from many other years of government spending. When is that going to get paid off? It doesn't actually ever have to be paid off. As long as the level of debt doesn't grow substantially, the debt will make up a smaller and smaller ratio when compared to the economy and the debt service charges will make up a smaller and smaller piece of total government spending. After the recession is over (which it probably is, but we should wait until normal growth returns before stopping stimulus), then we can work at getting back into the black and slowly paying down our debt to the optimal level of below 25% of GDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 It doesn't actually ever have to be paid off. As long as the level of debt doesn't grow substantially, the debt will make up a smaller and smaller ratio when compared to the economy and the debt service charges will make up a smaller and smaller piece of total government spending. After the recession is over (which it probably is, but we should wait until normal growth returns before stopping stimulus), then we can work at getting back into the black and slowly paying down our debt to the optimal level of below 25% of GDP. A student of Reaganomics, oh joy. I heard Enron is hiring.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm certainly not a student of Reganomics. I believe in responsible government fiscal policy, nothing less, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 .....The US unemployment is still growing and so is ours and since our economies are so connected, there's no light at the end of the tunnel yet. That means combatting the deficit is a lower priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 A student of Reaganomics, oh joy. I heard Enron is hiring.......... When is the right time to borrow anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 When is the right time to borrow anyway? Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 When is the right time to borrow anyway? When the net benefit exceed the net costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 When the net benefit exceed the net costs. By jove, you have it right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Never. That seems silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMP Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 It doesn't actually ever have to be paid off. As long as the level of debt doesn't grow substantially, the debt will make up a smaller and smaller ratio when compared to the economy and the debt service charges will make up a smaller and smaller piece of total government spending. After the recession is over (which it probably is, but we should wait until normal growth returns before stopping stimulus), then we can work at getting back into the black and slowly paying down our debt to the optimal level of below 25% of GDP. Well I have to say you're an optimistic person... maybe you should check out this .... http://www.debtclock.ca/ It's not going down is it. Moving up quite fast. See how much you own the government right now. 14,000 G's when are you going to pay yours? Your probably planning on leaving the planet before you do and passing it off to your children, or grandchildren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 This is the first time that the debt is growing is over a decade. Yes, it will go up for now, but eventually, the growth in the economy will outpace the growth in the debt, and even if the actual debt doesn't go down, the percentage of the GDP that is offset by the debt will will decline. The situation will fix itself provided that the government doesn't increase spending too much. I also expect that pressure from the people will force the elimination of the deficit before it fixes itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 The problem is that consumption taxes are the best way for the government to garner revenue from everybody.They should not be overused since by definition they tax people more heavily that really cannot afford to pay. I'm for a mixed bag; perhaps a GST of about 3% and income taxes and "sin taxes" for the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddSox Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 They should not be overused since by definition they tax people more heavily that really cannot afford to pay. I'm for a mixed bag; perhaps a GST of about 3% and income taxes and "sin taxes" for the rest. What about the GST rebate? I know an elderly gentleman who lives a fairly comfortable life on CPP and OIS (about $14000 a year) and receives about $400 per year in GST rebates - and he spends nowhere near that amount. I agree that a 'mixed bag' is the best approach, but I think the VAT taxes should be higher, income taxes lower, and sin taxes should be almost eliminated. I'm getting sick of this concept that some L-shaped a**hole should be telling me what I should think, do or say... Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 sin taxes should be almost eliminated. You want to do things that are known to harm you...and society, you have to pay. It's a wonderful idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 You want to do things that are known to harm you...and society, you have to pay. It's a wonderful idea. I'm absolutely in favour of of sin taxes. Hike those all you want. Make cigarettes cost enough that they directly cover the costs for all cancer treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) I'm absolutely in favour of of sin taxes. Hike those all you want. Make cigarettes cost enough that they directly cover the costs for all cancer treatment. Legalize weed and tax it. They would make even more money off it then smoking. Edited July 29, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I agree that a 'mixed bag' is the best approach, but I think the VAT taxes should be higher, income taxes lower, and sin taxes should be almost eliminated. I'm getting sick of this concept that some L-shaped a**hole should be telling me what I should think, do or say...My feeling is that all tax rates, whether consumption-based, income-based or "sin"-based should be set at levels low enough to minimize the incentive and opportunity for evasion. As far as "sin" taxes goes, at least, to some extent, the consumer can make his own economic and life-style decision as to whether to incur those taxes. The problem with making VAT higher is that they fall most heavily on those who can least afford to pay them. Also, at present rates, particularly when in conjunction with PST or HST, the rates can be high enough to foster an underground economy built on the evasion of those taxes. The same result occurs when income taxes are set at unrealistically high levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.