Ontario Budget 2014 -- Election

[BobbyS]

Long time reader and first time poster here. Since we have a decent discussion going on about the provincial election, I figured I would offer my point of view as something to consider.

I've long been a conservative supporter and I've generally found that my values fall a little bit more to the right of centre than anywhere else. Unfortunately this time around I am unhappy with all of the choices that we have been left with. With NDP Andrea Horwath I really can't tell what she stands for since she voted down a budget that I surely thought she would be in favour of. With Kathleen Wynne I think she is getting a bit of a bad rap for the errors made by McGuinty, but focusing specifically on her, I am not a fan of the Ontario Pension Plan as I think CPP reform would be more beneficial. That being said it doesn't look like Stephen Harper has any intention to improve CPP to provide for a more secure retirement for Canadians. Then we have Tim Hudak. He is supposed to be my guy. Unfortunately he is just too far to the right for my taste. First it was his push for Right to Work legislation. For anyone who knows anything about RTW laws they will see that all of the states with RTW have lower average wages, poorer working conditions for employees and a lower standard of living. Look at a map of the USA and ask yourself which states you would want to live in if you had to choose one. California maybe? New York? You will notice a trend that these are not Right to Work states like Alabama for example. The initial impact of Right to Work definitely shows a slight increase in the employment rate, but it is not really helping society if more people are working and making a fraction of their previous wages. While Hudak has thankfully publicly backed away from this policy, he still maintains many documents on his website touting Right to Work as the way to go. I think that this strategy of pitting workers and workers in the public/private sector is nothing more than a strategy to collectively drive all wages and benefits down, eventually make all pensions both public and private a thing of the past and see health benefits disappear.

Despite the presence of these documents on Hudak's website I was still willing to give him a chance until last week. When he made the announcements that A) He plans to layoff 100,000 people and He plans to give a 30% tax break to corporations, that was the last straw for me for a number of reasons. We have already been told by the former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney that corporations are sitting on billions of dollars right now that they are not investing. Giving them 30% less in taxes with no conditions to create jobs and pass those savings on to new employees is not going the situation. Having 100,000 former middle class families turning to the unemployment line is going to put an increased burden on EI in the immediate term and the bigger impacts will be felt by all of us in both the public and private labour markets. Having 100,000 more people desperately looking for work plays into the hands of large corporate employers and nobody else. It is simply supply and demand - create an excess supply of labour and there will be huge pressure on the wages and benefits of everyone who is employed. Wanted that raise? Were expecting that bonus? I know I and many others can expect to lose out on these things only to be told by our Manager that "Looks at how bad things are out there for people right now, you should just be happy that you have a job". I cannot get on board with this culture of creating fear for all employees in both the public/private sector to the point that we should just be happy with the status quo and never strive to see things collectively become improved for society.

As someone with a Masters in economics, I figured Hudak would also be aware that by laying off so many middle class income earners, there will be a huge ripple effect on the economy. Do renovations? Painting? Building Decks? Well I know that all of the clients who are teachers or government workers of any sort are not going to have the money to hire you to do work any more. Less new cars will be purchased, less money to put kids in sports for many families bringing up the costs for those of us who can still afford it. The list goes on and on. Ripple effect will be absolutely devastating. Something tells me that Tim is well aware of this and that it is exactly what his corporate friends would like. I also find it extremely hypocritical that his wife seems to have bee on the Sunshine list for several years taking in excess of $200,000 in some years.

All that said I really am sickened by the lack of good choices. I am disgusted by the Gas Plants and E-Health, etc.....but I don't know how fair it is to lay that all on Wynne when she was not in power at the time. Andrea is just giving me nothing to get excited about at all and Tim well....you've read what I wrote above by now. I think one of the big problems is that none of the leaders are focusing on the fact that manufacturing leaving the province of Ontario is not a partisan issue or problem, it is the effect of globalization and corporations choosing higher profits by moving plants to places like Bangladesh, Laos and Thailand rather than have products made in Canada. Reality is that regardless of which party is in power we need to collectively reinvent ourselves as a province and nation and find a new way to innovate our economy.

On that note.....this whole situation sucks. I hate all three options. That being said I feel that Tim Hudak is actually the worst of the three so I will vote for the non conservative candidate in my riding who historically gets the highest percentage of the votes. My hope is that this will result in a very slim minority government that requires the parties to reinvent themselves and hopefully the next time around the PCs will elect a leader with a vision that I can get behind.


-B

[Boges]

I suspect you never considered voting for the PCs at all.

We shouldn't cut government jobs because they are good paying jobs? Even if they are unnecessary? The government shouldn't be a make work project for employing people. If you're going to use government money to create jobs, make them private jobs with help from the government.

Also the fact that you say that "Wynne wasn't in power" when she was a high-ranking member of the cabinet and actually headed the re-election campaign that allowed the decision to cancel the Mississauga Gas Plant to happen is clearly means she was complicit in the many scandals of this part.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Boges

[BobbyS]

I suspect you never considered voting for the PCs at all.

We shouldn't cut government jobs because they are good paying jobs? Even if they are unnecessary? The government shouldn't be a make work project for employing people. If you're going to use government money to create jobs, make them private jobs with help from the government.

Also the fact that you say that "Wynne wasn't in power" when she was a high-ranking member of the cabinet and actually headed the re-election campaign that allowed the decision to cancel the Mississauga Gas Plant to happen is clearly means she was complicit in the many scandals of this part.

You suspect wrong. I actually voted PC when Tory was running and I also voted for Harper (twice), which I may reconsider in the future if I'm given an option other than JT.

I did not say we should not cut any government jobs. I said making a blanket promise to immediately eliminate 100,000 people would have drastic consequences. This is much, much different from taking a balanced approach and saying that you think there are too many layers of bureaucracy in government and that we need fewer middle managers and supervisors who do very little actual work. Had Hudak said that he wanted to cut the bureaucracy and perform a thorough review of government services to make them more efficient, I would support that. Making promises to pink slip 100,000 people is something that either A) Hot air to try again reaffirm support from the hard right or Incredibly reckless and damaging to the economy if it happens like that. He would be much better off to review positions and identify those that can be eliminated and forms of government that can be downsized as people retire rather than putting people on EI.

Regarding Wynne, my point stands that she was not in power. What we do know is that all three parties were in favour of the plant cancellations. All three parties need to give their head a shake. Like I said I hope for a minority government so that the PCs will reinvent themselves and give me someone a bit more moderate to get behind. My gut says Hudak cannot be trusted and is only out to benefit his Walmart type corporate friends. If he does get elected and starts with the cuts I hope he leads by example and takes a pay cut himself, puts a pay cut on all politicians, and that when the teachers get a roll back I hope he applies it to the pensions that his parents are collecting as well, otherwise he would just be a hypocrite.

[Boges]

You suspect wrong. I actually voted PC when Tory was running and I also voted for Harper (twice), which I may reconsider in the future if I'm given an option other than JT.

I did not say we should not cut any government jobs. I said making a blanket promise to immediately eliminate 100,000 people would have drastic consequences. This is much, much different from taking a balanced approach and saying that you think there are too many layers of bureaucracy in government and that we need fewer middle managers and supervisors who do very little actual work. Had Hudak said that he wanted to cut the bureaucracy and perform a thorough review of government services to make them more efficient, I would support that. Making promises to pink slip 100,000 people is something that either A) Hot air to try again reaffirm support from the hard right or Incredibly reckless and damaging to the economy if it happens like that. He would be much better off to review positions and identify those that can be eliminated and forms of government that can be downsized as people retire rather than putting people on EI.

I'll concede attaching numbers to his platform is perhaps a mistake. He says he'll create $1 million jobs. It allows people to scoff at that number thinking he won't do it.

Also saying he'll remove 100,000 jobs seems jarring. But I suspect it's this kind of honesty that's required in Ontario. We live in a world where Rob Ford can campaign to stop the Gravy Train but not really remove any of the real waste (middle-management bureaucracy)

I do think a lot of jobs can be contracted out. And many of the government organizations can be done away with. Like the redundant or Irrelevant agencies we have in Ontario like the OPA, Drive Clean and LHINS.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/05/09/21660096.html

I don't believe it will hurt Hudak that much either because anyone in the civil servant already is compelled by their Union not vote PC.

I hope he says something about the way liqour is sold in Ontario and how LCBO workers can make $20/hour plus by stocking shelves, savings could be found there. Or they could grow the industry by allowing private sales. Ontario is still one of very few places in the developed world where people can't access alcohol through private avenues.

Regarding Wynne, my point stands that she was not in power. What we do know is that all three parties were in favour of the plant cancellations. All three parties need to give their head a shake. Like I said I hope for a minority government so that the PCs will reinvent themselves and give me someone a bit more moderate to get behind. My gut says Hudak cannot be trusted and is only out to benefit his Walmart type corporate friends. If he does get elected and starts with the cuts I hope he leads by example and takes a pay cut himself, puts a pay cut on all politicians, and that when the teachers get a roll back I hope he applies it to the pensions that his parents are collecting as well, otherwise he would just be a hypocrite.

Cutting politician pay may feel good but it does little in control overall spending. Hudak says he will cut the cabinet. Once an MPP is labelled a minister they get a bump in pay. It's a great avenue for quasi-patronage.

[WWWTT]

It's looking like a Conservative majority right now in Ontario. http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/ontario.html?spref=tw

History doesn't bode well for Stephen Harper on that point. The federal government tends to be a different party from the Ontario provincial government. If they elect Hudak, history would have Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister in 2015.

Or Thomas Mulcair.

History dictates an alternative. When Brian Mulroney was in Ottawa, Bob Rae came in to solidify the historic trend 24 years ago.

WWWTT

[ironstone]

Ontario NDP made some noise about it, but it sounds like you think that a lower government can protest a higher government, and the higher government will give in to the provincial demands

You have absolutely no idea how our manufacturing sector works! 1CDN$=0.9US$, that's what will bring back manufacturing!

WWWTT

It could be argued that federal governments have been giving in to Quebec for years now.As for the manufacturing sector,the value of our dollar relative to the American dollar is very important of course but there are other factors driving business out of Ontario.You can dismiss my arguments but how about those of Don Walker?

http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/08/magna_says_no_new_plants_for_canada_cites_ontario_energy_costs.html

[Argus]

Not really. I'm thinking it's going to be a Harper minority in 2015.

I pray you're right. That would be the best possible alternative I can see. Harper hated being in a minority. He might decide to leave, then.

[Argus]

You're complaining about people who have lost the big board game of economics and wondering why they don't care about deficits, it seems to me.

Manufacturing workers who have lost out in the trade wars and now are unemployable are getting a free ride. Is that an apt example ?

Don't play the sob story with me. I've been poor myself, and I kept at it, kept applying myself. But you know what, even if I hadn't, I don't think I'd believe it was unfair to expect that those who pay the piper call the tune more than those who do nothing. Everyone should have to contribute something, even if its community service.

[Argus]

You suspect wrong. I actually voted PC when Tory was running and I also voted for Harper (twice), which I may reconsider in the future if I'm given an option other than JT.

Welcome to my world, Bobby

I did not say we should not cut any government jobs. I said making a blanket promise to immediately eliminate 100,000 people would have drastic consequences. This is much, much different from taking a balanced approach and saying that you think there are too many layers of bureaucracy in government and that we need fewer middle managers and supervisors who do very little actual work.

I agree, but that wouldn't get him the press he needs. I don't think Hudak has any specific plan to cut X jobs. I don't know if the number of jobs he even could cut would come to 100,000. But it's politics, so he needed a big number, much like the one million jobs. Elections are full of handy sound bite numbers like that, most of which are pulled out of a pollsters butt. And realistically, there are going to have to be cuts, which means job cuts. Even the Liberals, if they ever made a serious effort to cut their spending, would wind up laying people off.

Regarding Wynne, my point stands that she was not in power. What we do know is that all three parties were in favour of the plant cancellations

Maybe not, but her budget calls for tax increases, and a HIGHER deficit. That's enough to sink her in my eyes. Further more, the gas plants were really stupid ideas to begin with. Who builds a power plant acosos the street from schools and houses anyway!? There was furious protests from everyone but they bulled right through, signed the contracts, and started building, right up until they decided it might cost them a seat or two.

I don't like Hudak myself. But how many years can we go on wasting borrowed money?

What will be the fastest-rising cost for the Ontario government in the next three years?

Health care? K-12 education? Postsecondary education? Justice? Community services?

If you guessed any of these, you got it wrong. The fastest-rising program will be paying interest on the debt. It’s going up by 5.5 per cent a year, 21/2 times faster than the health budget. It’s now the third-largest item in the Ontario budget, after health care and education. Servicing the debt takes $10.6-billion a year, and heading higher. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ontarios-debt-burden-just-keeps-on-growing/article11689508/#dashboard/follows/

Now what do we do when the historical low interest rates we've been experiencing rise, as they're expected to over the next several years? Debt servicing costs could double. What's that going to do to us?

[Icebound]

Huh? It's law for every driver to purchase their own insurance. So when cars are not used as they were intended the parties involved are immediately covered.

And forcing auto manufacturers to fund public health is a weird notion. Once would argue the idea of ticketing people for simple traffic offences is essentially a method to subsidize those involved in public health.

....

Why is it weird? Only because we have become used to the status quo... and keep protecting industry at the expense of taxpayers.

Why shouldn't an industry pay for the unintended consequences of its products? OF COURSE, liability should be shared with the operators, but there is no reason it has to be EXCLUSIVELY and ONLY the operators...

...and of course, it is not going to happen.... but perhaps it should.

[Michael Hardner]

Don't play the sob story with me. I've been poor myself, and I kept at it, kept applying myself. But you know what, even if I hadn't, I don't think I'd believe it was unfair to expect that those who pay the piper call the tune more than those who do nothing. Everyone should have to contribute something, even if its community service.

It sounds like you've rationalized how you got where you are just as most people do, including them.

[Icebound]

If anybody is serious about creating "one million jobs", they are going to have to solve the income-inequality problem.

...and if they think that cutting 100,000 jobs in the public sector will help the private sector make it happen, then they should read Thomas Piketty.

And if they don't have time, they could read a summary here: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2014/05/05/Thomas-Piketty-Destroys/

And if they dont have time for all of that, the just the third and fourth paragraphs, following the subtile "How Rentiers Stay Afloat".

Further on.....

"As inequality grows, regular people lose their purchasing power. They go into debt. The economy gets destabilized. (Piketty, and many other economists, count the increase in inequality as one of the reasons the economy blew up in 2007-'08.)"

.... and the punch line:

"What we are headed for, after several decades of free market mania, is superinequality, possibly such as the world has never seen. In this world, more and more wealth will be gained off the backs of the 99 per cent, and less and less will be earned through hard work. Which essentially means freedom for the rich, and no one else."

That last bit is just a reminder that it is not only the really-low-income-non-taxpayer who is not contributing.... at least he is contributing WORK. But his work does not accumulate wealth. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are accumulating wealth and contributing no work at all.

...

...

[CPCFTW]

There's nothing wrong with inequality if everyone's purchasing power continues to rise, which it has in Canada. Piketty's whole book is based on the flawed assumption that inequality is inherently bad.

If anybody is serious about creating "one million jobs", they are going to have to solve the income-inequality problem.

...and if they think that cutting 100,000 jobs in the public sector will help the private sector make it happen, then they should read Thomas Piketty.

And if they don't have time, they could read a summary here: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2014/05/05/Thomas-Piketty-Destroys/

And if they dont have time for all of that, the just the third and fourth paragraphs, following the subtile "How Rentiers Stay Afloat".

Further on.....

"As inequality grows, regular people lose their purchasing power. They go into debt. The economy gets destabilized. (Piketty, and many other economists, count the increase in inequality as one of the reasons the economy blew up in 2007-'08.)"

.... and the punch line:

"What we are headed for, after several decades of free market mania, is superinequality, possibly such as the world has never seen. In this world, more and more wealth will be gained off the backs of the 99 per cent, and less and less will be earned through hard work. Which essentially means freedom for the rich, and no one else."

That last bit is just a reminder that it is not only the really-low-income-non-taxpayer who is not contributing.... at least he is contributing WORK. But his work does not accumulate wealth. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are accumulating wealth and contributing no work at all.

...

...

Edited May 13, 2014 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Here's some sweet liberal job creation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/15/toronto-star-layoffs-job-cuts_n_4280396.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/torstar-to-offer-buyouts-to-1-050-star-employees-1.1058692

Torstar just released its consolidated annual financial statements about a week ago. They lost 27M on 1.3B in revenue so unfortunately Hudak's tax cut won't change their tune since they don't pay any taxes. Their salaries and benefits cost is 480M (37% of revenues), so Wynne's 1.9% tax hike will cost them another $7M-8M (unless the torstar employee union already has a comparable pension).

You'd think that a company that keeps laying off employees due to excessive labour and operating costs would understand the value of reducing labour and energy costs for job creation.

Anyone else care to look up some other Ontario based corporations that will save jobs if Hudak wins over Wynne? There are thousands of them!

Edited May 13, 2014 by CPCFTW

[Wayward Son]

There's nothing wrong with inequality if everyone's purchasing power continues to rise, which it has in Canada. Piketty's whole book is based on the flawed assumption that inequality is inherently bad.

I have no opinion on Piketty's work. But I find it odd that Piketty's whole book would be based on the flawed assumption that inequality is inherently bad...when he thinks that inequality is beneficial unless it is extreme...and that increasing inequality would also be fine if the overall growth rate of the country is strong enough.

"You do need some level of inequality to get the right incentives and generate growth. But if people feel that a disproportionate share of growth only goes to the top-wealth minority, then a large fraction of public opinion in European countries or in North America might turn against globalization. So I think it’s important to ensure that inequality remains within limits that can be understood and accepted, and indeed are in the common interest.

So inequality, up to a certain point, is in the common interest, but when it gets too extreme, it’s just in the interest of the people at the top but not in the common interest any more. When you look at the United States over the past 30 years, you have between two-thirds and three-quarters of the aggregate growth and primary income going to the top 10 per cent and mostly to the top 1 per cent. If the growth rate during that period had been very good – 4 or 5 per cent per year — then rising inequality would not have been a problem because there would be a lot left for everybody. But the problem is that the growth performance has not been particularly good. Per capita GDP has risen by only perhaps 1.5 per cent per year. So if you have two-thirds or three-quarters of that going to the top, there is really very little left for the middle class and the bottom group."

[BobbyS]

I don't like Hudak myself. But how many years can we go on wasting borrowed money?

What will be the fastest-rising cost for the Ontario government in the next three years?

Health care? K-12 education? Postsecondary education? Justice? Community services?

If you guessed any of these, you got it wrong. The fastest-rising program will be paying interest on the debt. It’s going up by 5.5 per cent a year, 21/2 times faster than the health budget. It’s now the third-largest item in the Ontario budget, after health care and education. Servicing the debt takes $10.6-billion a year, and heading higher. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ontarios-debt-burden-just-keeps-on-growing/article11689508/#dashboard/follows/

Now what do we do when the historical low interest rates we've been experiencing rise, as they're expected to over the next several years? Debt servicing costs could double. What's that going to do to us?

Argus, I get your point, but I stand firm on my position that a blanket approach to chopping jobs that he supports will decimate Ontario's economy. Also by destroying unionization in Ontario, he will create lower wages for everyone by lowering the bar. Here is an example:

There are hospitals in Ontario that have unions and there are hospitals that do not have unions.

My cousin happens to work in a non-unionized hospital. In order to keep the union out of the hospital, they offer a pay and benefits package very similar to a nearby hospital that IS unionized. This way, the nurses that she works with enjoy equal pay and benefits and the hospital is happy that they are not unionized. If the union is destroyed from the other hospital, the bar will be lowered for everyone....nurses in both hospitals will be forced to accept less and less money and benefits and the race to the bottom begins. It will all come down to who is willing to work for the least amount of money. In a number of other positions - such as mid level finance positions, the government positions are also setting a bar for the private sector to compare to - if the bar is lowered, everyone except the owners/shareholders will end up losing.

When the average middle class worker has their wages significantly lowered, the ripple effect across the economy is extraordinary. People have less money to travel, buy new homes, renovate, spend on groceries, go out to restaurants, etc. We will all feel it. Personally I'd like to see us aspire to improve the standard of living for the majority of people, not just for the top tier of society.

Just my opinion.

Debt is a problem but it needs to be handled and reduced in a responsible manner. We also need someone to be honest about the costs of improving GTA transit and that it is going to cost money and we need to bite the bullet at some point in time. By constantly putting it off we end up spending just as much if not more in fuel costs by idling on highways and in lost time.

[CPCFTW]

I have no opinion on Piketty's work. But I find it odd that Piketty's whole book would be based on the flawed assumption that inequality is inherently bad...when he thinks that inequality is beneficial unless it is extreme...and that increasing inequality would also be fine if the overall growth rate of the country is strong enough.

"You do need some level of inequality to get the right incentives and generate growth. But if people feel that a disproportionate share of growth only goes to the top-wealth minority, then a large fraction of public opinion in European countries or in North America might turn against globalization. So I think it’s important to ensure that inequality remains within limits that can be understood and accepted, and indeed are in the common interest.

So inequality, up to a certain point, is in the common interest, but when it gets too extreme, it’s just in the interest of the people at the top but not in the common interest any more. When you look at the United States over the past 30 years, you have between two-thirds and three-quarters of the aggregate growth and primary income going to the top 10 per cent and mostly to the top 1 per cent. If the growth rate during that period had been very good – 4 or 5 per cent per year — then rising inequality would not have been a problem because there would be a lot left for everybody. But the problem is that the growth performance has not been particularly good. Per capita GDP has risen by only perhaps 1.5 per cent per year. So if you have two-thirds or three-quarters of that going to the top, there is really very little left for the middle class and the bottom group."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2yz1aCVku

Yet the book also has clear weaknesses. The most important is that it does not deal with why soaring inequality – while more than adequately demonstrated – matters. Essentially, Piketty simply assumes that it does.

One argument for inequality is that it is a spur to (or product of) innovation. The contrary evidence is clear: contemporary inequality and, above all, inherited wealth are unnecessary for this purpose. Another argument is that the product of just processes must be just. Yet even if the processes driving inequality were themselves just (which is doubtful), this is not the only principle of distributive justice. Another – to me more plausible – argument against Piketty’s is that inequality is less important in an economy that is now 20 times as productive as those of two centuries ago: even the poor enjoy goods and services unavailable to the richest a few decades ago.

Edited May 13, 2014 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Here's some sweet liberal job creation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/15/toronto-star-layoffs-job-cuts_n_4280396.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/torstar-to-offer-buyouts-to-1-050-star-employees-1.1058692

Torstar just released its consolidated annual financial statements about a week ago. They lost 27M on 1.3B in revenue so unfortunately Hudak's tax cut won't change their tune since they don't pay any taxes. Their salaries and benefits cost is 480M (37% of revenues), so Wynne's 1.9% tax hike will cost them another $7M-8M (unless the torstar employee union already has a comparable pension).

You'd think that a company that keeps laying off employees due to excessive labour and operating costs would understand the value of reducing labour and energy costs for job creation.

Anyone else care to look up some other Ontario based corporations that will save jobs if Hudak wins over Wynne? There are thousands of them!

Here's another one. Rogers communications. They spend $1.9B on employing 28k Canadians. The corporate tax cut would have saved Rogers approximately $68M in 2013. That's enough to hire about 1000 more employees without affecting the bottom line.

[CPCFTW]

Argus, I get your point, but I stand firm on my position that a blanket approach to chopping jobs that he supports will decimate Ontario's economy. Also by destroying unionization in Ontario, he will create lower wages for everyone by lowering the bar. Here is an example:

There are hospitals in Ontario that have unions and there are hospitals that do not have unions.

My cousin happens to work in a non-unionized hospital. In order to keep the union out of the hospital, they offer a pay and benefits package very similar to a nearby hospital that IS unionized. This way, the nurses that she works with enjoy equal pay and benefits and the hospital is happy that they are not unionized. If the union is destroyed from the other hospital, the bar will be lowered for everyone....nurses in both hospitals will be forced to accept less and less money and benefits and the race to the bottom begins. It will all come down to who is willing to work for the least amount of money. In a number of other positions - such as mid level finance positions, the government positions are also setting a bar for the private sector to compare to - if the bar is lowered, everyone except the owners/shareholders will end up losing.

When the average middle class worker has their wages significantly lowered, the ripple effect across the economy is extraordinary. People have less money to travel, buy new homes, renovate, spend on groceries, go out to restaurants, etc. We will all feel it. Personally I'd like to see us aspire to improve the standard of living for the majority of people, not just for the top tier of society.

Just my opinion.

Debt is a problem but it needs to be handled and reduced in a responsible manner. We also need someone to be honest about the costs of improving GTA transit and that it is going to cost money and we need to bite the bullet at some point in time. By constantly putting it off we end up spending just as much if not more in fuel costs by idling on highways and in lost time.

This is slippery slope nonsense. Cutting public sector jobs and reducing the debt and deficit will have a positive effect on the economy by increasing the future disposable income of the middle class (when budgets are balanced and the debt burden is reduced, conservative policies would be to reduce taxes on the middle class and job creators [corporations]).

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Just a point of order.

Avoid re-copying the entirety of your fellow member's posts in quotes. That is not necessary.

Please review the following thread: Trim Your Posts and Quotes to understand more of what is expected in how you format your replies.

If you need help, just ask. Ask openly in the forum or send a Personal Message to the moderating staff.

Ch. A.

[Big Guy]

Tim Hudak needs a new campaign team. There are far too many screw ups taking place where his organization looks inept. From poorly chosen policy presentations to getting tossed off a subway train undermines his and his organizations ability to govern properly. The federal machine has to get in there quickly and get this campaign going in the right direction.\

Campaigns should be fought on policy and not poor planning.

[Icebound]

Here's another one. Rogers communications. They spend $1.9B on employing 28k Canadians. The corporate tax cut would have saved Rogers approximately $68M in 2013. That's enough to hire about 1000 more employees without affecting the bottom line.

You and I both know that $68M was not going to hire 1000 employees or anything like it.

...

[Topaz]

I'm waiting for the upcoming debates and they should be very interesting and probably nasty. Hudak's job creation is like the feds, lower corp.taxes and the businesses will hire. Well, the feds found out that the business are keeping trillions of dollars and were not hiring, at least Canadians, so why would the Ontario business es be different??? The NDP has said that she will only reduce taxes to businesses that DO hire, which makes more sense.

[BobbyS]

This is slippery slope nonsense. Cutting public sector jobs and reducing the debt and deficit will have a positive effect on the economy by increasing the future disposable income of the middle class (when budgets are balanced and the debt burden is reduced, conservative policies would be to reduce taxes on the middle class and job creators [corporations]).

It has already been proven MANY MANY times that corporate tax cuts without any conditions do not result in job creation. You really didn't know this by now?

[BobbyS]

You and I both know that $68M was not going to hire 1000 employees or anything like it.

...

But we both know it would have been a nice dividend increase for Rogers Shareholders.

Edited May 13, 2014 by BobbyS