Smallc Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Being off by over $10 Billion is common? I remember Paul Martin being off by close to that a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 I remember Paul Martin being off by close to that a few times. Like I said, it wasn't much better when they were running massive surpluses. The projections shouldn't be off by so much. I get a few billion, but over $10 billion? That's just poor forecasting. Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Like I said, it wasn't much better when they were running massive surpluses. The projections shouldn't be off by so much. I get a few billion, but over $10 billion? That's just poor forecasting. It's not poor forecasting. This is being off by about 3%. That's actually not bad at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't say it's better or worse. Remember when the Conservatives said that the Liberals were ripping off Canadians by turning so many surplus? They interpreted that as meaning they were collecting too much in taxes, right? The forecast should be relatively accurate. I don't expect it to be perfect, but the magnitude of the difference here tells me that their forecasting is not reliable at all. I would love to know why they were off by so much and I would also love to know what assets they sold off to get the deficit down. Where did they find those multiple billions in savings? They're not being very transparent about those things though. The government should be transparent about its finances, don't you think? They really shouldn't have a forecast then come in billions and billions of dollars away from that mark. That's not very open and transparent, regardless of the direction. In perspective - that $10 billion (more like $11 billion) seems like a lot - but is less than 4% of total revenues. It wasn't that long ago that government departments went on a spending spree near the end of the Fiscal Year so that they wouldn't "lose" that amount in the next Fiscal Plan. Those tricks are mostly a thing of the past - if money is left over, it remains unspent. You'd need a crystal ball to budget and manage almost $300 billion down to the last percent or two. Here's an article that gives the numbers: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/revenue-boost-continued-cuts-to-direct-program-spending-dramatically-improve-federal-finances Edited October 14, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The Bank of Canada forecasts the entire economy within 1% though. Why can't the federal government get a little more accurate than a 4% swing? Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The Bank of Canada forecasts the entire economy within 1% though. Why can't the federal government get a little more accurate than a 4% swing? The amount the economy grows by doesn't generally swing wildly. Tax collection is an entirely different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The amount the economy grows by doesn't generally swing wildly. Tax collection is an entirely different matter. Are the two not related? Quote "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 It's not so simple as that. That receipts change a Great deal because of a variety of factors, one of which is economic growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 800 million? Better check your numbers. More like 5.2 billion. That's this year. They hope to have a surplus in the next budget. Iraq may just have an effect on that. Nothing to say now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Nothing to say now? I don't have to say anything. Harper already did. Check the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 I don't have to say anything. Harper already did. Check the numbers. I did. I even provided links. You were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 They do admit to screwing up by about 11 billion, that's always reassuring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Nobody screwed up. Tax receipts where better than expected, and so the government did better by about 3%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Projections are projections. No one can predict the future, and being accurate to within 3% is pretty damn good. Anyone try to predict the value of the stock market a year later to within 3%? If you could you'd be a trillionaire. And yet stock market movements, among other just as unpredictable phenomena, play a substantial impact on government finances. Markets rose by ~30% in 2013, about 4 times historical average rates, and that could not have been predicted, likely a substantial impact on any forecast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Nobody screwed up. Tax receipts where better than expected, and so the government did better by about 3%. Exactly. They under promised and over delivered. It's bizarre to criticize someone for doing better than they had planned to. All that means is they get to start enacting further tax breaks even earlier. Now, if they DIDN'T return the surplus to the taxpayers, and they continued to have ever increasing surpluses, then there'd be reason to be concerned because that crosses over from sound fiscal management to just over-charging the tax payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 Exactly. They under promised and over delivered. It's bizarre to criticize someone for doing better than they had planned to. All that means is they get to start enacting further tax breaks even earlier. Now, if they DIDN'T return the surplus to the taxpayers, and they continued to have ever increasing surpluses, then there'd be reason to be concerned because that crosses over from sound fiscal management to just over-charging the tax payers. Disagree. Much rather that they pay off the deficit, first. And then build up a sovereign wealth fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 They should work to pay off the debt, yes. It would save us all close to $1000 a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 I did. I even provided links. You were wrong. Humility is not a strong suit for On Guard....... Quote Back to Basics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scared.In.Canada Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 I'm just so looking forward to seeing the backs of this bunch of knuckle-dragging zeros. Explain what they have done that was so terrible and how it affected your life in a negative fashion. Same goes for anyone who didn't vote for the CPC. I'll wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peoples advocate Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 I personally hope he resigns and goes over to the middle -east never to be heard from again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peoples advocate Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 Well, they should definitely ban third party spending during all elections, not just federal ones. I'm not sure how they can ban people from doing issue advertising outside an election period. though. Come Come as I see it they have killed enough third world people to keep anyone busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Come Come as I see it they have killed enough third world people to keep anyone busy. Would you care to suggest what the relationship might be between your reply and my post? Edited November 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peoples advocate Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think as the polls continue to drift ever lower for the CPC the spotlight will become even more focused on Harper's leadership. Especially after last weeks embarrasments with him announcing Canadian troop deployments, not in the House where he promised it would be done, and of course where it should be done, but in an interview with US newspapers. And then of course there's the pit that Calandra dug for himself and the party and which he continues to dig deeper as recently as on cbc radio's The House just this am. Then of course there is the Duffy trial looming so calling an early election might be a good strategy, but then of course Harper will have welched on yet another promise i.e. fixed date elections. Just ain't no good news anywhere. Harper tried to fashion some with his EU trade deal, but that fell apart when the news came out it ain't even close to being ratified and the Germans, for one, are not quite happy yet. So that didn't work. I would venture a guess the backroom boys are tossing around throwing the excess baggage overside even if it means facing an election with an untested leader. I personally hope they keep Harper...I bet JT concurs. I hope he stays as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProudCanadianConservative Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Why would Harper step down when Trudeau hasn't even realized a platform or policy initiative yet. Trudeau's leading in the polls because he's dodging commitment, Harper fell in the polls because he's dodging serious issues, plus the Duffy scandal/trial. The problem with Trudeau is the only thing Conservatives can attack him on is his inexperience. Trudeau has very little substance at the moment, he's much like President Obama before he got elected, false promises and media ignorance. As far as whether Harper should step-down, I think it's too late, I plan to support Conservatives in the 2015 election, but the next election I'd like to see a new leader of the Conservative Party. The reason Harper won't step down before the election is because he and many party execs fear he's the only one who can keep right united. Some fear Jason Kenney would alienate the more moderate Conservatives, and they fear Jim Prentice or Peter McKay would alienate the old Reformers. I believe the next Conservative Party leader should be Brad Wall, but I doubt he'd run in a leadership race because it could fracture the Sask Party. Quote True North, Strong, and Free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Exactly. They under promised and over delivered. It's bizarre to criticize someone for doing better than they had planned to. All that means is they get to start enacting further tax breaks even earlier. Now, if they DIDN'T return the surplus to the taxpayers, and they continued to have ever increasing surpluses, then there'd be reason to be concerned because that crosses over from sound fiscal management to just over-charging the tax payers. Yup ... taking money and services away from people without jobs ... and giving it to the wealthy in return for political contributions ... what Harper excels at. . Quote Rapists, pedophiles, and nazis post online too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.