Ontario Budget 2014 -- Election

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

How is Hudak cutting corporate taxes by 30% going to help the budget?

Look, I'm not trying to tell you how Ontario will balance it's budget. I'm telling you what the PISA data shows about Canadian students, relative between provinces and relative to other nations. Those who spend more training their teachers, funding resources for struggling students, and helping their teachers specialize in maths and sciences tend to have more successful students. If you think the kids will be fine by taking money away from those things, you are wrong.

Michael Hardner · May 11, 2014

So tell me, is it not true that student scores on reading and math have been steadily going downhill? So what good are the new, smaller class sizes doing us exactly?

Cite ?

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

Cite ?

I'll do some legwork today and see if I can get the student scores as well as Canada's relative position by year. It's all on the PISA website. But you'll have to hunt. Search PISA results to find their OECD page.

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

Here are the scores with Canada's rank in parentheses.

The 95% confidence interval is usually around +/- 9. So any difference greater than +/- 9% is statistically significant at the .05 level. Any difference less than 9 points would be considered sampling or factor variation.

Also important to note, this is a standardized test. The OECD average is 500. As you can see from the scores, Canada outranks the OECD average in all areas. A grade level is roughly 20-30 points. As you can see, Canadian students are about a grade level above the OECD average. We also have some of the lowest education inequality; most of our students' test scores fall close to the mean score for Canada. Compare that with the US which has high inequality. The have substantially greater variation in scores.

One of the things that I mentioned earlier is that Shanghai-China is crushing everyone else. The head analyst of PISA claims this is due to Shanghai changing the way they educate their children by creating a more inclusive system, instead of focusing on the elite children, as well as significantly improving teacher pay and training and focusing teaching children problem solving skills instead of rote memorization. Sound familiar?

So when people on this forum talk about the PISA ranking, then turn around and say that we need to cut teacher pay and training, while increasing class sizes just to save a buck, it's completely opposed to the analysis done by PISA itself. They want to bring the numbers into this discussion, but then they're not aware of the analysis that PISA has done on those numbers. Nothing in the PISA rankings suggests that school cutbacks will have no effect and in fact suggests the opposite. The analysis suggests that better pay and training makes better teachers, which should hardly be surprising or controversial. Is it not the same in just about every other job?

Michael Hardner · May 11, 2014

In any case - these numbers don't warrant anything close to alarm do they ?

I think it points to quality in the system, which is a good baseline. Education reform should maintain this level of quality, to achieve its goals which are likely cost reduction.

Argus · May 11, 2014

How is Hudak cutting corporate taxes by 30% going to help the budget?

Dunno. I'm generally against broad corporate tax cuts. But then, I'm not exactly a fan of Hudak.

Look, I'm not trying to tell you how Ontario will balance it's budget. I'm telling you what the PISA data shows about Canadian students, relative between provinces and relative to other nations. Those who spend more training their teachers, funding resources for struggling students, and helping their teachers specialize in maths and sciences tend to have more successful students. If you think the kids will be fine by taking money away from those things, you are wrong.

Who's to say Ontario does any of that? We know it spends a ton on its education system, but how much goes to any of that vs high salaries and benefits for teachers, and experimenting with a wide variety of educational fads? The economic of full time junior kindergarten, for example, vs the strictly theoretical benefits comes to mind. And part of that cost was that instead of hiring early childhood educators to teach finger painting and the like, Ontario hired much more expensive teachers in order to please the teachers unions. Ontario has a huge surplus of teachers, you see, and every year it trains far more teachers than it has any need for.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/full-day-kindergarten-offers-no-academic-advantage-study-says/article17715532/#dashboard/follows/

http://www.macleans.ca/general/why-full-day-kindergarten-is-failing-our-children/

Edited May 11, 2014 by Argus

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

That's a scattershot of a bunch of different issues, Argus. We were talking about children's school achievement. Particularly, the reference to math and science scores, which comes from the PISA surveys. The fact is children do better with better trained, more specialized, and higher paid teachers. This shouldn't even be controversial. Perhaps if we focused on that, we would need less teachers in the long run. Maybe we will need more, due to specialization. I don't know. The problem is that this issue isn't as clear cut as internet message boards try to make them out to be. "[insert Province Here] is broke; therefore, firing teachers and cut their funding" is nice for people that would like their information in black and white, easily digestible terms. The reality is that it's not that simple. More to the point, borrowing from our children's skills tomorrow to save a buck today is unethical at best and will most likely be damaging to the future economy as a result of underachievement.

Edited May 11, 2014 by cybercoma

Argus · May 11, 2014

That's a scattershot of a bunch of different issues, Argus. We were talking about children's school achievement. Particularly, the reference to math and science scores, which comes from the PISA surveys. The fact is children do better with better trained, more specialized, and higher paid teachers. This shouldn't even be controversial. Perhaps if we focused on that, we would need less teachers in the long run. Maybe we will need more, due to specialization. I don't know. The problem is that this issue isn't as clear cut as internet message boards try to make them out to be. "[insert Province Here] is broke; therefore, firing teachers and cut their funding" is nice for people that would like their information in black and white, easily digestible terms. The reality is that it's not that simple. More to the point, borrowing from our children's skills tomorrow to save a buck today is unethical at best and will most likely be damaging to the future economy as a result of underachievement.

First, I haven't ever taken the position that cutting funding to education is going to enhance education. My point is that given the need to balance the budget, given Ontario has already raised taxes again and again, there is going to be a need to cut the budget. That means education and health care. There's no question it has to happen. And given our continually increasing education funding does not seem to have resulted in any increase in results, well, maybe cutting it back some won't be all that disastrous.

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

The federal government is cutting health transfers and now you want the Ontario government to cut the healthcare budget. That's what you're saying. If you want to know why the provinces are raising taxes, look no further than Ottawa. Are you not one of the ones that keeps saying, "but that's a provincial responsibility." So you want to strip them of their funding from the fed, but then expect them to keep taxes low or even reduce them? Come on now.

TimG · May 11, 2014

The federal government is cutting health transfers and now you want the Ontario government to cut the healthcare budget.

The feds are NOT cutting transfers. They are simply limiting the increases to inflation starting in something like 2018.

So you want to strip them of their funding from the fed, but then expect them to keep taxes low or even reduce them? Come on now.

If people don't want taxes they can't expect services. The public mood right now is definitely anti-tax (people in favour or raising other people's taxes are still anti-tax because they oppose raising taxes on themselves). Edited May 11, 2014 by TimG

bleeding heart · May 11, 2014

Well, there's some truth to that. I think taxes should be raised across the board (excepting the lower-income workers...and yes, I get that the devil's in the details when determining criteria); further, I think the tax hikes themselves should reflect the "progressive tax" hierarchy, so that the increases themselves are percentage-wise bigger, the more income you've got. I'm doing well enough that I would feel it...and the only reason I bother to mention it is because of the "spending other people's money" claim that invariably gets thrown out.

WWWTT · May 11, 2014

Looks like Hudak jumped on to the campaign ice and quickly fell on his bum. 100,000 public service job cuts? There are about 1,000,000 public service employees in Ontario. Take away the federal and municipal workers (which the province has no control over) and those involved in the health field and that leaves about 500,000. People involved in Ontario public education are half of that. Assuming that those 100,000 come from this pool then he will be getting rid of 50,000 teachers. How can you get rid of that many teachers and not have major workplace disruptions?

The Wynne campaign has decided to run against Harper thereby marginalizing Hudak and painting Hudak as another Harper/Harris. When Hudak says power plants, Wynne spins to Harper/Harris.

Hudak is starting this campaign like he did the last one. His team has to sit down, decide the direction and get that momentum going.

Personally, I have yet to have a dog in this fight but do watch and try to analyze campaigns. Tim Hudak has to crank things up a level or he is going to get blown out again.

Come on Tim, get your game face on and start doing some damage!

I seriously doubt Hudack thinks he can win this at all.

This outlandish campaign strategy sounds like the pc internal polling are returning some grim news.

WWWTT

ironstone · May 11, 2014

This is a great budget for the residents of Ontario. I heard Sid Ryan is in favor of it and that is good enough for me.

Do you actually know anything about Ontario and it's current economic situation?

ironstone · May 11, 2014

The federal government is cutting health transfers and now you want the Ontario government to cut the healthcare budget. That's what you're saying. If you want to know why the provinces are raising taxes, look no further than Ottawa. Are you not one of the ones that keeps saying, "but that's a provincial responsibility." So you want to strip them of their funding from the fed, but then expect them to keep taxes low or even reduce them? Come on now.

Chretien and Martin also cut transfer payments including health care funding years ago,but I don't really remember much protest from the left back then.It's a real pity that once mighty Ontario is now officially a have-not province,thanks to the failed policies of the McGuinty/Wynne government.We are rapidly heading towards $300 billion in debt with interest on that debt over $10 billion.I have seen articles saying we have lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs in that time as well.I'm sure most of you are aware of all the major businesses that are leaving Ontario for greener pastures.Don't get me started on the idiotic Green Energy Act either.It is a sad situation in Ontario and even with the right people in power,it could take decades to undo all the damage.

socialist · May 11, 2014

Do you actually know anything about Ontario and it's current economic situation?

Yes, I do. Wynne is a strong leader. Hudak is weak and will do his best to damage public education in Ontario.

cybercoma · May 11, 2014

Chretien and Martin also cut transfer payments including health care funding years ago,but I don't really remember much protest from the left back then.

then you obviously forget that they had to separate the health and social transfers due to people's criticism.

WWWTT · May 11, 2014

Chretien and Martin also cut transfer payments including health care funding years ago,but I don't really remember much protest from the left back then.It's a real pity that once mighty Ontario is now officially a have-not province,thanks to the failed policies of the McGuinty/Wynne government.We are rapidly heading towards $300 billion in debt with interest on that debt over $10 billion.I have seen articles saying we have lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs in that time as well.I'm sure most of you are aware of all the major businesses that are leaving Ontario for greener pastures.Don't get me started on the idiotic Green Energy Act either.It is a sad situation in Ontario and even with the right people in power,it could take decades to undo all the damage.

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 :rolleyes:

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

WWWTT

Edited May 11, 2014 by WWWTT

MiddleClassCentrist · May 12, 2014

Hudak cutting corporate taxes by 30% is the absolute dumbest strategy I have every heard! It's already been cut, and cut, and cut. It hasn't helped.

Has he not read the news? Corporations are swimming in excess cash and doing NOTHING with it.

When the heck are we going to get a conservative that understands how to build a frickin economy. You don't build an economy with big business... you can only maintain one with big business. To truly generate economic activity you need to continually INVEST in new small to medium entrepreneurs and innovators.

Take the amount he'd save corps by cutting corporate taxes by 30% and give it to bright Ontarians with ideas to change the world.

Edited May 12, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist

Argus · May 12, 2014

The federal government is cutting health transfers and now you want the Ontario government to cut the healthcare budget. That's what you're saying. If you want to know why the provinces are raising taxes, look no further than Ottawa.

Ottawa is providing Ontario with MORE money in transfers, considerably more, than Mike Harris ever got under the federal Liberal government. Why is it Ottawa's fault that Ontario has increased program spending by 60%? Why is it Ottawa's fault that Ontario has totally screwed up its entire electricity system?

Dan Miles, a spokesman for federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, said that the $20 billion the federal government transfers to Ontario is an all-time high.

“This represents a whopping nearly 80 per cent increase from under the old Liberal federal government, including almost $3.2 billion through Equalization, $12 billion through the Canada Health Transfer, and $4.7 billion through the Canada Social Transfer,” Miles said in a statement to the Star Monday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/01/ottawa_defends_amount_of_transfer_payments_to_ontario.html

And no, I don't "want" Ontario to cut its healthcare budget. But I don't want us to keep boring money until we're Greece, either. We have to balance the budget, and it's completely unrealistic to believe we can do that without cuts to health care and education. EVER. Those two represent almost two thirds of the provincial budget.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Argus

Argus · May 12, 2014

Well, there's some truth to that. I think taxes should be raised across the board (excepting the lower-income workers...and yes, I get that the devil's in the details when determining criteria); further, I think the tax hikes themselves should reflect the "progressive tax" hierarchy, so that the increases themselves are percentage-wise bigger, the more income you've got. I'm doing well enough that I would feel it...and the only reason I bother to mention it is because of the "spending other people's money" claim that invariably gets thrown out.

I will agree so long as those who don't pay taxes are not allowed to vote for those who decide how tax money is being spent.

I mean, why should they? It's not their money.

Big Guy · May 12, 2014

I will agree so long as those who don't pay taxes are not allowed to vote for those who decide how tax money is being spent.

I mean, why should they? It's not their money.

Interesting concept. I will go one step further. Each family is evaluated as to total net personal worth then each family gets one vote for every $200,000 of personal worth. Welfare folks get no vote. Since the median net worth of Canadian families hit $243,800 in 2012, each family would get one vote. The millionaire would get 5 votes and David Thomson would be allowed 130,000 votes.

Makes sense to me.

cybercoma · May 12, 2014

Ottawa is providing Ontario with MORE money in transfers, considerably more, than Mike Harris ever got under the federal Liberal government. Why is it Ottawa's fault that Ontario has increased program spending by 60%? Why is it Ottawa's fault that Ontario has totally screwed up its entire electricity system?Dan Miles, a spokesman for federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, said that the $20 billion the federal government transfers to Ontario is an all-time high.

“This represents a whopping nearly 80 per cent increase from under the old Liberal federal government, including almost $3.2 billion through Equalization, $12 billion through the Canada Health Transfer, and $4.7 billion through the Canada Social Transfer,” Miles said in a statement to the Star Monday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/01/ottawa_defends_amount_of_transfer_payments_to_ontario.html

And no, I don't "want" Ontario to cut its healthcare budget. But I don't want us to keep boring money until we're Greece, either. We have to balance the budget, and it's completely unrealistic to believe we can do that without cuts to health care and education. EVER. Those two represent almost two thirds of the provincial budget.

there's many other ways to balance the budget than making cutbacks to the two primary responsibilities of the provinces.

Wayward Son · May 12, 2014

I will agree so long as those who don't pay taxes are not allowed to vote for those who decide how tax money is being spent.

I mean, why should they? It's not their money.

Who exactly does not pay sales tax?

cybercoma · May 12, 2014

Interesting concept. I will go one step further. Each family is evaluated as to total net personal worth then each family gets one vote for every $200,000 of personal worth. Welfare folks get no vote. Since the median net worth of Canadian families hit $243,800 in 2012, each family would get one vote. The millionaire would get 5 votes and David Thomson would be allowed 130,000 votes.

Makes sense to me.

maybe we can roll out the guillotines again.