PBO finds Harper Govt saved middle class tens of billions

[Keepitsimple]

you seem quite content to continue to avoid any discussion of lost revenues, particularly those associated with corporate tax cuts. The article cyber linked to provided a dandy summation on what programs/services just one year of those lost revenues could actually fund. You know, the kinds of things that might actually get the attention of Canadians so critical of Harper Conservatives.

It's a discussion of polarized views that never seems to go anywhere. Those on the Left see tax cuts as a loss of revenue - revenue that should be spent by the government. Those on the right see tax cuts as a way to increase government revenues by leaving money in the pockets of companies and citizens - where every dollar spent results in multiple dollars (some economists say 7 dollars for every one dollar injected) flowing through the system. It will generate a lot of criticism from our posters but a great example of how this can work is shown in the Mike Harris years. He slashed taxes by 30% (I think that was the number.....and government revenues rose by 40 or 50% over the course of his two majority mandates. But really - the point is that there's a time and place for tax cuts - and there's even a time and place for tax increases. But to arbitrarily cast every tax cut as a loss of revenue is disingenuous. In today's global economy, we're competing against countries all over the world and in some cases, against individual US states.

So no, I won't get into a discussion other than to say that we have to ensure that we are competitively taxed.....and that every government dollar is spent wisely - with a purpose.....and that every level of government stick to their knitting - cities do what cities should do, provinces likewise, and the Feds the same. They are have responsibilities and accountabilities....they should do their job and quit bashing the next level of government. It's almost trite - but there really is only one tax payer.

[waldo]

The article is wrong. Go read the "alternate budget" that is mentioned in the asterisk. The national child care program is supposed to cost at least 1% of GDP annually.. Which at this point would be over $18B annually.

of course now dated, Paul Martin Liberals (2005) proposed a national program ($5 billion/over 4 years)... of course, it's all about defining what's actually being discussed. Some variants (only) target 3-5 year olds, presuming to establish that before entertaining expanding it (if at all). Perhaps if you cited your number and its specifics there might be a comparison ability. Otherwise, for you to simply label the article "wrong" seems quite the reach (is that in its entirety... "wrong", simply on this one national child care program line-item entry).

[CPCFTW]

of course now dated, Paul Martin Liberals (2005) proposed a national program ($5 billion/over 4 years)... of course, it's all about defining what's actually being discussed. Some variants (only) target 3-5 year olds, presuming to establish that before entertaining expanding it (if at all). Perhaps if you cited your number and its specifics there might be a comparison ability. Otherwise, for you to simply label the article "wrong" seems quite the reach (is that in its entirety... "wrong", simply on this one national child care program line-item entry).

The rest of the stuff listed is meaningless... "Invest in A,B,C,D". We could invest in a lot of things with more revenue.. it's pretty pointless to say what we can invest in, but I suppose it is accurate that with more revenue we could invest into more things. We could also invest in Solyndra (or a $350M downtown Toronto office building for government staff). The important question is, is it worth seizing capital from the private sector to make these investments?

But what is inaccurate in the article is this:

For example, tax credits for children cost Canadians $2.74 billion. But a month or two of childcare in Ontario is equal to the total after-tax savings from these tax credits, while an affordable national childcare program would cost less to implement -- and saves families thousands of dollars.

The article cites where it got the numbers from, which is this alternate budget:

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2014/02/AFB2014_MainDocument.pdf

Page 50 of the alternate budget outlines that it plans to invest $1B, $2B, $3B, $4B, then $5B over the next 5 years towards a universal ECEC system, then it will evaluate how well spent that $15B was and the goal is to eventually invest at least 1% of GDP/yr on a national childcare program. Canada's GDP is $1.8 trillion, so the budget says that a national childcare program will cost approx $18B+/yr to implement (closer to $20B+ after 5 years), not $2B.

The article is being disingenuous or just plain lying... and that's ignoring the fact that the "alternate budget" basically just assumes that a national childcare program can be implemented for 1% of GDP.. it would probably be double that if its workers are unionized.

[CPCFTW]

Also one thing to note, Quebec has an "affordable child care program" and it costs almost $3B/yr. So to suggest we could implement a national one for just $2B/yr is laughable.

[waldo]

The article is being disingenuous or just plain lying... and that's ignoring the fact that the "alternate budget" basically just assumes that a national childcare program can be implemented for 1% of GDP.. it would probably be double that if its workers are unionized.

you've clearly missed the thrust of the article... and you've chosen to fixate on one item, while taking liberties with it for/over an extended time frame.

let's recap: the article simply outlined what it could do with the equivalent $43 billion in lost revenues... this single years lost revenues. For what it's worth, the $2B quoted accurately follows the first-year numbers of the CCPA alternate budget's national child care program deployment. That's it - full stop. I am quite surprised (heartened maybe!) that you would give so much credence to what one of the most progressive think tanks offers up in their alternate budget. On the other hand, it is quite telling to realize just how well/better that alternate budget, presented yearly, is claimed to have estimated budgetary surpluses as compared to government's own efforts. And then you finish off with a somewhat dismissive handwave for the rest of the line-item attachments breaking out the overall lost $43 billion revenues... ya, ya, many things could be done with that lost revenue. The linked article simply outlined an example - one you anally parsed beyond the single year being addressed.

[waldo]

Also one thing to note, Quebec has an "affordable child care program" and it costs almost $3B/yr. So to suggest we could implement a national one for just $2B/yr is laughable.

didn't you just break out the extended year numbers yourself... $15 billion... and then a review/decision point. Again, the $2B was just for the single year... the first year. Perhaps you should actually read what you wrote. I'd suggest if you're so enamored with the subject of national child care, strike up a thread and have at it.

[CPCFTW]

didn't you just break out the extended year numbers yourself... $15 billion... and then a review/decision point. Again, the $2B was just for the single year... the first year. Perhaps you should actually read what you wrote. I'd suggest if you're so enamored with the subject of national child care, strike up a thread and have at it.

You must have missed the quote I provided from the article which states:

"For example, tax credits for children cost Canadians $2.74 billion. But a month or two of childcare in Ontario is equal to the total after-tax savings from these tax credits, while an affordable national childcare program would cost less to implement -- and saves families thousands of dollars."

That is wrong. It wouldn't take $2B to implement. It would take hundreds of billions. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It is intentionally misleading to readers to suggest that an affordable national childcare program could have been "implemented" with $2B.

Edited June 2, 2014 by CPCFTW

[waldo]

You must have missed the quote I provided from the article which states:

"For example, tax credits for children cost Canadians $2.74 billion. But a month or two of childcare in Ontario is equal to the total after-tax savings from these tax credits, while an affordable national childcare program would cost less to implement -- and saves families thousands of dollars."

That is wrong. It wouldn't take $2B to implement. It would take hundreds of billions. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It is intentionally misleading to readers to suggest that an affordable national childcare program could have been "implemented" with $2B.

and again, you're in the weeds, missing the bigger picture intent of the article. Again, $2B for the first year... which extended (by your own words/writing) to $15B after 5 years. What you're doing is nonsense since, as emphasized, no real details of the program deployment are provided. You're fixated on trying to put definition and accountability around something that has none provided. For what purpose? The article was detailing nothing more than 'imaginary musing' and how $43 Billion in lost revenues... for the/this single year... might be targeted/applied. For some reason you've chosen to go beyond the single year, beyond the $2Billion that accurately reflects the alternate budget's first year reference. Whatever an actual extended full program deployment might cost, what that program actually constitutes... all of that extends beyond the single year equivalency referenced.