Ontario Budget 2014 -- Election

[CPCFTW]

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.

Many, if not most, SMEs are corporations.

Ontario only gets $10B in revenue from corporate taxes, so a 30% cut is only $3B less revenue. Since Hudak is eliminating the $1.5B of liberal corporate handouts, it's really only a -$1.5B impact to revenues and that's only if you assume cutting corporate taxes will have no positive effect to the gross tax base.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Many, if not most, SMEs are corporations.

Ontario only gets $10B in revenue from corporate taxes, so a 30% cut is only $3B less revenue. Since Hudak is eliminating the $1.5B of liberal corporate handouts, it's really only a -$1.5B impact to revenues and that's only if you assume cutting corporate taxes will have no positive effect to the gross tax base.

I understand existing companies would benefit a little but the largest chunk would be to big business.

The largest potential increase of jobs in today's economy comes from new company creation. An established company might need to hire one or two people with a $100,000 investment. A brand new company would need to hire their entire staff with a $100,000 investment.

I believe in free-enterprise but, my conservative mind is from the bottom up. Keeping the lawn green is less about the leaves on top and more about the roots underneath. If Hudak came out with that slogan, he'd sail to victory IMO. Voters are already skeptical of big business. Mostly because our big business governments haven't been fertilizing the roots as well as they should be.

I hope someone in the PC's takes this ideal to heart... Ontario would have a brighter future.

[Black Dog]

I'm glad Hudak came out and said it early. There are WAY!!!! to many Public servants. I'll repeat, the budget is DOUBLE what it was 11 years ago when the Liberals took over. There's no way that's justifiable.

How many public servants are there now compared to 10 years ago?

Edited May 12, 2014 by Black Dog

[MiddleClassCentrist]

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

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/

Because they have an unlimited supply of arts, history, phys ed, english and other degrees of low science technlology engineering and mathematics.

My big question in this deficit situation is not whether they should have jobs but,

Why are dime a dozen arts degree, history degree, or phys ed degree holder's worth the same as a teacher with engineering and work experience, computer engineering, physics, masters of business....

It boggles my mind. Where would else would a teacher with arts, history, or physic commonly clear 70, or even 80k a year after 6 years?

[Boges]

How many public servants are there now compared to 10 years ago?

A stat was being thrown out this weekend. Michael posted it. I believe it's from Andy Coyne.

Since 2000 the growth of public servants has grown at double the rate of population growth.

And we're not talking about teachers and inspectors etc. We're talking people that are civil servants that do stuff that normal people do. Janitors, Bus Drivers, IT professionals, Food providers.

People that do stuff that could easily be contracted out.

[Boges]

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.

Or we could just simply go back to only allowing white land owners vote.

[cybercoma]

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.

[Boges]

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.

Siver lining right?

The 2015 election wil be a lot like this election. It'll be a lot about how comfortable people are with a newcomer like JT. But that's for a different thread.

BTW Civil servants seem hell bent on de-railing Hudak.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/11/ontario-pc-leader-tim-hudaks-transit-announcement-almost-derailed-by-ttc-police/

Before anyway says Hudak should have known better. No way in HELL they do that to Wynne.

Hudak should steer clear of any civil servant for the remainder of the campaign. They won't vote for him anyway.

[Boges]

OK! OK! who wants to defend Feed-In Tariffs for Wind and Solar Power?

The Hydro rate has risen and will continue to rise exponentially for the forseeable future.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Boges

[Argus]

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

You mean more tax increases? I think Ontario has tried that many, many times since the Liberals got elected, starting with about one day after their election on a 'no tax increases' platform. Every time they raise taxes they raise spending. I don't think this Liberal government has the capability to EVER balance its budget.

[Argus]

Who exactly does not pay sales tax?

The people who get it refunded.

[Boges]

You mean more tax increases? I think Ontario has tried that many, many times since the Liberals got elected, starting with about one day after their election on a 'no tax increases' platform. Every time they raise taxes they raise spending. I don't think this Liberal government has the capability to EVER balance its budget.

The Wynne Liberal budget increases taxes AND!!!! increases the deficit.

[Argus]

Or we could just simply go back to only allowing white land owners vote.

I know I've argued many times about the income inequality out there, and I know that taxation is a means to address that. But I'm frankly bothered by the number of Canadians who bear NO responsibility to support the state. Why should such people have any interest in electing people who will practice fiscal competence? Indeed, their interests lie in voting in the most profligate spenders they can find, because, after all, they foot none of the bills, but only get the goodies such politicians promise. So it seems to me to be not an outrageous suggestion that those of us who forfeit a substantial portion of our income to support the state ought to have more of a say in how that money is spent than those who pay nothing and do nothing. I'm not sure what the answer is, be it required community service or what, but I think there are simply too many getting a free ride.

[cybercoma]

Siver lining right?

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

[Boges]

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

I do think Harper will be assisted by the new seats.

Here's the thing about the Provincial/Federal difference. Hudak won't win unless he can make gains in the 905/Suburb ridings that help Harper get a majority in 2011.

[Michael Hardner]

Indeed, their interests lie in voting in the most profligate spenders they can find, because, after all, they foot none of the bills, but only get the goodies such politicians promise.

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.

I'm not sure what the answer is, be it required community service or what, but I think there are simply too many getting a free ride.

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

[cybercoma]

I do think Harper will be assisted by the new seats.

Here's the thing about the Provincial/Federal difference. Hudak won't win unless he can make gains in the 905/Suburb ridings that help Harper get a majority in 2011.

Hudak stumbled at the finish line during the last election, iirc. I don't follow the Ontario elections very closely. So we'll see how he does. I'm frankly surprised he's still PC leader. He seems to have a difficult time when it comes to campaigning.

[Boges]

Hudak stumbled at the finish line during the last election, iirc. I don't follow the Ontario elections very closely. So we'll see how he does. I'm frankly surprised he's still PC leader. He seems to have a difficult time when it comes to campaigning.

Hudak's failings in 2011 were that he wasn't conservative enough. He thought he could do what Horvath is doing now. Not having a platform too different from McGuinty but hoping people will elect him because of ORNGE, E-Health, HST etc.

I'm actually surprised he hasn't made much of the Liberal scandals much so far. I guess he wants his platform out first so Wynne can't steal the attention.

It would have been difficult to remove Hudak because of the minority situation. Wynne or McGuinty could have called a quick snap election a la Stockwell Day.

Also it's quite unfair. McGuinty, Harper both lost their first election. Wildrose hasn't gotten rid of Danielle Smith.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Boges

[Wayward Son]

Hudak's failings in 2011 were that he wasn't conservative enough. He thought he could do what Horvath is doing now. Not having a platform too different from McGuinty but hoping people will elect him because of ORNGE, E-Health, HST etc.

I think that over simplifies the problems Hudak had last election.

Also the Ornge scandal was not known during the previous election (Klees was asking questions, and Gelinas had also been demanding some answers, but the only media report was one by CTV, about possible incompetence, not corruption. The CTV report was a day or two before the election campaign started, and the second part of the story was never aired). I personally think that concentrating on the scandals makes more sense this election.

[Topaz]

My view is Wynne should forget about Harper and stay on Hudak. but anything is possible, its just depends on how many will vote and how many new voters there are. As voters we can only listen to what is being said and question everything that is said and here were the reporters comes into play by asking follow up questions of each leader.

[Boges]

I think that over simplifies the problems Hudak had last election.

Also the Ornge scandal was not known during the previous election (Klees was asking questions, and Gelinas had also been demanding some answers, but the only media report was one by CTV, about possible incompetence, not corruption. The CTV report was a day or two before the election campaign started, and the second part of the story was never aired). I personally think that concentrating on the scandals makes more sense this election.

I agree the scandal situation is much MUCH worse. Now we have a police investigation to attach to a Gas Plant scandal that only started during the last election.

I hope Hudak goes there. Especially during a debate. Hudak needs to highlight why Ontario should reject this party outright regardless who leads them.

[Boges]

My view is Wynne should forget about Harper and stay on Hudak. but anything is possible, its just depends on how many will vote and how many new voters there are. As voters we can only listen to what is being said and question everything that is said and here were the reporters comes into play by asking follow up questions of each leader.

Blaming Harper is the act of a desperate person. Pauline didn't even talk about Harper much in Quebec did she? Perhaps because ultimately Ottawa is Quebec's sugar daddy.

[Wayward Son]

I agree the scandal situation is much MUCH worse. Now we have a police investigation to attach to a Gas Plant scandal that only started during the last election.

I hope Hudak goes there. Especially during a debate. Hudak needs to highlight why Ontario should reject this party outright regardless who leads them.

I should say that although the known scandals are much worse this time (worse then any provincial or federal government I can think of in this country's history) my position as a party leader would be:

Horwath - concentrate on the scandals big time. Position your party as similar to the Liberals on policy, but able to govern without scandals and corruption.

Hudak - show how your policies are different. Talk about the scandals, but this can be secondary as long as the NDP as keeping those scandals in the news cycle.

Of course, I base both of those assessments on my own complete lack of expertise in running election campaigns.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Wayward Son

[Icebound]

......

So it seems to me to be not an outrageous suggestion that those of us who forfeit a substantial portion of our income to support the state ought to have more of a say in how that money is spent than those who pay nothing and do nothing.

....

YOU ALREADY DO!!!..

Two reasons... maybe 3.

1. The less wealthy are already less likely to vote that your group, statistically.

2. Your money allows you a greater ability to lobby and pressure the government-of-the-day to pass laws that you like, regardless of their own ideological stripe.

3. (maybe a corollary of 2)...There is plenty of evidence that way more of the enacted laws have a greater benefit for the rich than the poor.

And remember that some of that "forfeited" income is not strictly yours to keep, anyway.

It pays for services that you are going to have to pay for anyway, whether from a public or from a private corporation. Health care comes to mind.

Not to mention that some of that income is only possible because the industry (whatever it is) may have extra money that it should have used to clean up its own collateral damage.

Example... we all know that automobiles are necessary.... but why should automobile accidents be investigated on the public dime?? Why should not automobile manufacturers... realizing that the use of their product has some inherent danger.... be required to maintain an insurance fund to cover the investigation of those occurrences?

They don't, and we have to TAX you, to maintain a registry, and a police force and a health force to cover off the collateral damage of their product. But they could just as well have reduced their dividends, and their salaries, and used the extra money to cover that off themselves...

...

....

[Boges]

Example... we all know that automobiles are necessary.... but why should automobile accidents be investigated on the public dime?? Why should not automobile manufacturers... realizing that the use of their product has some inherent danger.... be required to maintain an insurance fund to cover the investigation of those occurrences?

They don't, and we have to TAX you, to maintain a registry, and a police force and a health force to cover off the collateral damage of their product. But they could just as well have reduced their dividends, and their salaries, and used the extra money to cover that off themselves...

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.

More to the point, why is auto manufacturing such a sacrosanct industry where government must continually subsidize it.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Boges