Conservative Budget Surplus

[bleeding heart]

It's much easier to balance a budget when a provincial government receives billions in federal welfare.

You mean like Conservative New Brunswick? Because you only mention it with NDP-led provinces, for...some reason.

[Smallc]

What I like is Jim Flaherty's Tax Back Guarantee - as the debt service goes down, so do taxes. We're paying $1000 a year per Canadian just to service the debt.

[Argus]

Doesn't mater.......Do you really think the majority of middle class, suburban voters will be opposed to a tax cut here and tax credit there?

If they don't mind pushing the debt onto the backs of their children, then I suppose not.

"Oh, boy, that's a load off my back! Here you go, son, enjoy your life of heavy taxes to pay for my debts! I'm off to the Bahamas!"

Edited November 14, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

From the "have" provinces.

The federal government gets their money from the provinces, eh? That's news.

[Shady]

You mean like Conservative New Brunswick? Because you only mention it with NDP-led provinces, for...some reason.

Yep. Just like New Brunswick. Same applies.

[bleeding heart]

Yep. Just like New Brunswick. Same applies.

Not by your formulation, in which the "welfare payments" make it "easy" to balance budgets.

Neither the current Conservative nor the previous Liberal governments have managed it.

Maybe only an NDP government could pull off something so "easy" here in NB!

[Shady]

Not by your formulation, in which the "welfare payments" make it "easy" to balance budgets.

Neither the current Conservative nor the previous Liberal governments have managed it.

Maybe only an NDP government could pull off something so "easy" here in NB!

If you're going to quote me, please quote me accurately. I said it makes it easier, not easy. That's a fact.

[bleeding heart]

Ok, then, easier. Doesn't change the point one bit.

[Shady]

Ok, then, easier. Doesn't change the point one bit.

Nonsense. From a province that could use the money being taken from us to give to welfare provinces, is it too much to ask for you to manage your own finances instead of balancing your budget on the backs of other Canadians?

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. From a province that could use the money being taken from us to give to welfare provinces, is it too much to ask for you to manage your own finances instead of balancing your budget on the backs of other Canadians?

Once again, provinces don't give money to the federal government.

[bleeding heart]

Nonsense. From a province that could use the money being taken from us to give to welfare provinces, is it too much to ask for you to manage your own finances instead of balancing your budget on the backs of other Canadians?

Even if I agreed with your sour view, I should point out that I voted for the party that isn't in power. Perhaps the NDP might have matched their better-than-average record elsewhere. You'll have to ask your Conservative brethren why they keep voting in incompetents.

But maybe it's a moot point. Equalization is not quite what you think; and nothing is set in stone. If it weren't for the Maritimes, there wouldn't be a Canada in the first place; and sometime in future, fortunes could change, and the have provinces could become the have-nots.

Edited November 14, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

Not really but you do bring up a good point....it's supposed to be neutral. How about all the years it was below neutral? Those just disappear?

How popular are tax increases amongst the voting public?

[Guest Derek L]

If they don't mind pushing the debt onto the backs of their children, then I suppose not.

"Oh, boy, that's a load off my back! Here you go, son, enjoy your life of heavy taxes to pay for my debts! I'm off to the Bahamas!"

By the same token and on a personal note, 15-20 years ago, paying less (under an income split guise) would have made the financial burden of having two young kids on 1 ½ incomes less felt.

As I’m certain today, a great many voters could use a couple thousand dollars in tax savings.

[Accountability Now]

How popular are tax increases amongst the voting public?

Its not...which is why I said paying down the debt isn't a politically correct move however it is objectively correct.

I do notice that you highlighted my question but chose not to answer it. Are we able to ignore debts from previous years and focus on a given year as the indicator of tax breaks? Even King Ralph waited until the debt was gone before handing out Ralph bucks

[Shady]

Its not...which is why I said paying down the debt isn't a politically correct move however it is objectively correct.

I do notice that you highlighted my question but chose not to answer it. Are we able to ignore debts from previous years and focus on a given year as the indicator of tax breaks? Even King Ralph waited until the debt was gone before handing out Ralph bucks

Tax payers keeping more of their own money isn't tantamount to Ralph bucks or any other kind.

If the federal surplus continues for more than a few years it would be prudent to have at least some of it kept in the economy and in people's pockets.

[Guest Derek L]

Its not...which is why I said paying down the debt isn't a politically correct move however it is objectively correct.

I do notice that you highlighted my question but chose not to answer it. Are we able to ignore debts from previous years and focus on a given year as the indicator of tax breaks? Even King Ralph waited until the debt was gone before handing out Ralph bucks

Yet the Finance Minister has stated a portion of the surplus will be used to pay down the debt, in addition to tax cuts.

As to your question, I’ve already answered it and spoke of what the finance minister plans to do to address our debt several times in this thread.

[Accountability Now]

Tax payers keeping more of their own money isn't tantamount to Ralph bucks or any other kind.

If the federal surplus continues for more than a few years it would be prudent to have at least some of it kept in the economy and in people's pockets.

Having a surplus after one year does not make it their money. A company does not pay dividends based on a year in the black especially after a number of years in the red.

It's their money when the liabilities are paid off...or close to it anyway.

[Guest Derek L]

Having a surplus after one year does not make it their money. A company does not pay dividends based on a year in the black especially after a number of years in the red.

It's their money when the liabilities are paid off...or close to it anyway.

So who's money is it? Also, I fail to see why you compare government to a company, fore as pointed out earlier, Government is not intended to "make a profit".

[Accountability Now]

So who's money is it? Also, I fail to see why you compare government to a company, fore as pointed out earlier, Government is not intended to "make a profit".

It's Canada's money. If there is enough money to give back to the taxpayer for their own use then great. But when the debt is as high as it is I think it's fair to say that we don't have enough.

It's funny...is it your money when we have deficits? If so then do you cut cheques back to the government in those years.

As for it being like a company...it doesn't have to be about intent to make profit. Not for profit companies operate the same way. Perhaps you don't want to use the company example at all? Let look at how we individually operate...we reduce our debts when ever we can. If you get a bonus, most people would pay off their mortgage, or car payment or whatever debt they have as they understand the interest is costing them. Why should government be any different?

[Guest Derek L]

It's Canada's money.

And what is Canada and how did it get money?

[Accountability Now]

And what is Canada and how did it get money?

What I think of Canada obviously differs from what you believe. I see it as a group of people that understand the importance of delayed gratification and the need to live within your means. It got its money because people pay the taxes to enable the government to operate. The amount of money needed to operate is not determined by one fiscal year. I don't think you get that....or you choose to ignore it.

[Guest Derek L]

What I think of Canada obviously differs from what you believe. I see it as a group of people that understand the importance of delayed gratification and the need to live within your means. It got its money because people pay the taxes to enable the government to operate. The amount of money needed to operate is not determined by one fiscal year. I don't think you get that....or you choose to ignore it.

So this Canada is a group of people, let's call them Canadians, and this money you speak of is that of these Canadians right?

[Accountability Now]

So this Canada is a group of people, let's call them Canadians, and this money you speak of is that of these Canadians right?

Yup...and it's their debt too. You haven't yet told me if you cut a cheque during the last few years of deficit?

[Guest Derek L]

Yup...and it's their debt too.

Sure it is, and these Canadians can decide through an electoral process, how much money they want returned to them and how much money they want to go towards debt.

You haven't yet told me if you cut a cheque during the last few years of deficit?

You bet I do, every year in about March.

[Shady]

Having a surplus after one year does not make it their money. A company does not pay dividends based on a year in the black especially after a number of years in the red.

It's their money when the liabilities are paid off...or close to it anyway.

It's their money regardless of surplus or deficit. Tax money is money confiscated from tax payers that earned it orignially. Regardless, like I said, it doesn't mean you cut taxes immediately. But if a surplus continues for several years, some of that should be returned back into the economy at some point.