Cuts VS Taxes -- Ontario

[TheNewTeddy]

A poll.

Chretien said in an interview he used 7 to 1 as his ratio. I think that's a good number IMO, but I could also back 3 to 1 and 5 to 1.

1 to -1 is, IMO, insanity. I personally consider anyone who suggests cutting taxes at a time of deep deficits as an extremist.

edit

6 to 1 would be the same as raising sales tax by 1% and doing the rest in cuts.

2 to 1 would be the same as raising sales tax by 2% and doing the rest in cuts.

I voted 5 to 1 which is close to the 6 to 1 that I could easily back even if it resulted in slightly higher sales taxes. We need to close this gap.

[Topaz]

I think we have a real mess here in Ontario. Libs have a minority, so the other two parties get to say yes or no but I don't think either one of them want to take over, there's too much to do to get it under control, so that way of looking at it, maybe the Libs still do have control. No one wants another election, parties probably afford it anyway. Ontario needs something to replace the manufacturing sector, but what? Any ideas?

[TheNewTeddy]

The Liberals could use the minority to their advantage.

There are unpopular things that need to be done. All the Liberals need to do is propose a budget without those things, and then "cave in" to the "unexpected demands" of the "uber right-wing Tories" who demand the things the Liberals secretly wanted in the first place. A few years of this to scare the public off Hudak and Dalton can go to the polls again, begging for the public to get Hudak off his back.

[capricorn]

All the Liberals need to do is propose a budget without those things, and then "cave in" to the "unexpected demands" of the "uber right-wing Tories" who demand the things the Liberals secretly wanted in the first place.

Oh noos. You mean the OLP has a hidden agenda?

A few years of this to scare the public off Hudak and Dalton can go to the polls again, begging for the public to get Hudak off his back.

IMO Dalton's will serve the full term and quit provincial politics. He will then be free to write about his legacy, i.e. how he turned Ontario into an energy and education powerhouse.

[mentalfloss]

Both.

[Shady]

Ontario is already highly taxed. They need to reform programs, and cut spending. And then evaluate any proposed tax increases. Cuts and reforms need to come first though.

[Newfoundlander]

Raising taxes, unless on cigarettes and alcohol, should be out of the question.

[punked]

Ontario has cut its corporate tax rates over the last 10 years to the bone. Spare me the BS please.

[Newfoundlander]

Ontario has cut its corporate tax rates over the last 10 years to the bone. Spare me the BS please.

Maybe they should increase the corporate tax rate then and see if companies stop leaving Toronto for Calgary.

[punked]

Maybe they should increase the corporate tax rate then and see if companies stop leaving Toronto for Calgary.

Their tax rate on profits are not going to stop them from moving, if they can make more profits in Calgary that is where they will be if they can make more in Toronto that is where they are going to be. Lets not be silly Ontario can be on a race to the bottom but fact is they don't have the oil to have a structured tax system that Alberta has. It doesn't work it is a much much different place, if Ontario wants to have the same economic diversity of Alberta it better find some oil really fast because other then that it needs to do what is right for Ontario.

[TheNewTeddy]

Ontario has oil, in Labmton county, which contains Sarnia.

Enough oil is produced from these wells to supply all of Lambton county.

[punked]

Ontario has oil, in Labmton county, which contains Sarnia.

Enough oil is produced from these wells to supply all of Lambton county.

NS has oil that doesn't make it Alberta.

[Newfoundlander]

BC is not Alberta but they're still able to have the same corporate tax rate as them, just like Ontario can.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Newfoundlander

[punked]

BC is not Alberta but they're still able to have the same corporate tax rate as them, just like Ontario can.

Are you talking about 4 billion dollar deficit BC? Yeah they are who Ontario should look to, to Balance their budget. As a GDP to deficit ratio BC has a bigger problem then Ontario does. As natural gas prices fall BC will continue to face a crunch and can not be Alberta either.

Edited February 18, 2012 by punked

[dre]

It really doesnt matter whether you cut spending or raise taxes.

It depends entirely on what kind of services they want the government to provide, and they decide that at election time. Once thats decided tax rates need to be high enough to fund those programs.

You cant blame government for deficits as if our government is some alien entity that has nothing to do with us. We have deficits because Canadians want high levels of services but they are too lazy and cheap to pay for them... so they vote in governments that increase spending and lower taxes at the same time. Well... what the hell did people THINK was gonna happen?

People need to either vote up their taxes or vote down their services, instead of sitting around crying about deficits like a bunch of retards. If you run a deficit its because you didnt pay your bills and you deserve what you get.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Are you talking about 4 billion dollar deficit BC? Yeah they are who Ontario should look to, to Balance their budget. As a GDP to deficit ratio BC has a bigger problem then Ontario does. As natural gas prices fall BC will continue to face a crunch and can not be Alberta either.

Is there any province that another can actually look to?

Edited February 19, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[CPCFTW]

I've said it before, been called a commie, and I'll say it again: the public/private relationship needs to change.

Private delivery, public/private ownership.

Imagine yourself, as an investor, could borrow at 1-2% to invest, and could borrow nearly unlimited money. Theoretically, you could buy all the companies in the world, pay a 2-4% dividend on profits, use half to pay your debt and the other half to pay yourself. In a world in which governments operated this way, the theoretical return of a portfolio of all the stocks/bonds/debt in the world, should be the return on the lowest sovereign interest rate in the world, because that government could just borrow more money to buy the higher yielding assets. ie. the country with the lowest borrowing costs should be able to financially take over the world.

Back to reality: lets say we privatized health care and personal health care costs go up due to the profit requirement (public spending on health care goes down to $0) plus there is no more free health care. Oh noes, what do we do?! Well how about we borrow to purchase a bunch of non-voting shares/bonds of the health care companies. We should be able to borrow at a rate that is much lower than the expected return of those private health care companies.

The spread between our borrowing rate, and the return on those assets is profit which can be redistributed to Canadians. We could write every Canadian a cheque each year for that spread of profits which they could use to pay for health care expenses. Not nanny-state enough for you? How about the profits are redistributed according to income? You make less, you get a bigger cheque. Use your big cheque to buy health insurance, and voila, everyone who needs it has free healthcare.

US spent about $805B on medicare and medicaid last year (ie. they borrowed 805B to spend on health care). That's enough to buy all of JNJ, Pfizer, Merck & Co., Abbott Labs, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis etc. (in one year). These companies pay out 3-5% dividends, US can borrow at 0.72% for 5 years, even without capital gains, taxpayers are making 2-4% profit on $805B per year (16B profit).

Rinse and repeat for education and there goes 50% of spending.

Note: governments already purchase plenty of private assets through public pension funds. It's just that we distribute those profits/returns to an elite class of bureaucrats and public employees who get pensions the rest of employees can only dream of. Basically we are already doing what I have suggested except that we are overspending our profits, and allocating most of the profits to the pensions of the elite class of bureaucrats (rather than health care for the destitute). Governments have decided that government employees should be entitled to a cozy lifestyle while everyday Canadians struggle to survive.

Edited February 19, 2012 by CPCFTW

[punked]

Is there any province that another can actually look to?

It is hard in a country as big as ours. What works for Alberta wont work for NS, and what works in Ontario wont work in Sask and so on.

[bush_cheney2004]

...US spent about $805B on medicare and medicaid last year (ie. they borrowed 805B to spend on health care).

No, the US did not borrow $805B for Medicare and Medicaid health care spending last year. Borrowing for fiscal year 2011 ran at about 37 cents for every federal dollar outlay. The difference was made up with existing federal revenue streams, including Medicare payroll taxes and premiums.

[CPCFTW]

No, the US did not borrow $805B for Medicare and Medicaid health care spending last year. Borrowing for fiscal year 2011 ran at about 37 cents for every federal dollar outlay. The difference was made up with existing federal revenue streams, including Medicare payroll taxes and premiums.

In my hypothetical scenario, if there was no public spending on health care, the us would still have a 300B deficit with the same revenue streams. Hence, if the alternative is to not spend anything on public delivery of health care, every dollar spent on health care is borrowed.

[bush_cheney2004]

In my hypothetical scenario, if there was no public spending on health care, the us would still have a 300B deficit with the same revenue streams. Hence, if the alternative is to not spend anything on public delivery of health care, every dollar spent on health care is borrowed.

Borrowing and debt service are still public spending in the end. There is a big difference between $805B and $300B deficit spending (borrowing).

[CPCFTW]

Borrowing and debt service are still public spending in the end. There is a big difference between $805B and $300B deficit spending (borrowing).

Let's say your revenue is 70, your total spending is 100. You spend 25 on public health care delivery. Cut that 25 out, you're still borrowing to provide services. That's all I meant by that comment, put your mini US flag down.

I'm suggesting the borrowing be used for ownership of financial assets with measureable returns. We could say we borrowed at 1%, invested 800B is private health care, had a 5% return, and redistributed 32B of evil corporate profits to the pockets of needy citizens.

Instead we borrow and the only measurable returns are wait times, the salaries of doctors, nurses, and ceos, and health care sector shareholder profits to the "1%".

Edited February 19, 2012 by CPCFTW

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's say your revenue is 70, your total spending is 100. You spend 25 on public health care delivery. Cut that 25 out, you're still borrowing to provide services. That's all I meant by that comment, put your mini US flag down.

Yea, I get all that, but you were pulling numbers out of your ass.

I'm suggesting the borrowing be used for ownership of financial assets with measureable returns. We could say we borrowed at 1%, invested 800B is private health care, had a 5% return, and redistributed 32B of evil corporate profits to the pockets of needy citizens.

Already happened....see General Motors and Chrysler.

Instead we borrow and the only measurable returns are wait times, the salaries of doctors, nurses, and ceos, and health care sector shareholder profits to the "1%".

Wait time is a Canadian provincial thing. Private sector health care spending is larger than public spending in the United States.

[CPCFTW]

Yea, I get all that, but you were pulling numbers out of your ass.

No I wasn't.

Already happened....see General Motors and Chrysler.

One of the best investments our governments ever made... and they were in corporate failures.

Wait time is a Canadian provincial thing. Private sector health care spending is larger than public spending in the United States.

True but it is mostly the "1%" that get the profits from private sector health care. I'm suggesting that taxpayers get a cut and then any socialist ideals can be managed through the redistribution of investment profits.

Universal healthcare should not preclude complete privatization... we just need our governments to become investors.

It's simple: privatize nearly everything, spending is reduced by 90%, use that 90% (or whatever is left over to eliminate the deficit) to invest in the privatized companies and other public companies, redistribute the investment profits in whichever way makes the hippies happy. No more deficit, no more camping/rioting hippies, fare fewer overpaid public sector employees and bureaucrats.

Edited February 19, 2012 by CPCFTW

[bush_cheney2004]

No I wasn't.

Even your hypothetical had bogus numbers. If you are going to use another nation to make a point, try to get it right.

One of the best investments our governments ever made... and they were in corporate failures.

No, small potatoes compared to real heavy hitters like the US Interstate Highway System.

True but it is mostly the "1%" that get the profits from private sector health care. I'm suggesting that taxpayers get a cut and then any socialist ideals can be managed through the redistribution of investment profits.

Patently false....many non "one percenters" get profits from private health care. My health care stocks have done quite well.

Universal healthcare should not preclude complete privatization... we just need our governments to become investors.

They already are.....education....licensing....regulation....hospitals.

It's simple: privatize everything, spending is reduced by 90%, use that 90% to invest in the privatized companies (plus other public companies), redistribute the investment profits in whichever way makes the hippies happy. No more deficit, no more camping/rioting hippies.

It's more fun to just taze and gas the "hippies".