Jump to content

Trudeau's out-of-control spending - something has to give


Moonbox

Recommended Posts

Was just reading this article and it sort of scared me a bit.  I knew Justin was a spender (still believe his dad was our worst PM ever, at least until him) but the numbers are pretty stark. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-expansion-of-federal-civil-service-lacks-the-proper-measurements-for/

That's a paywall but the gist of it is that the federal public service has grown by an appalling ~25% since 2016 while the population grew around 7%.  The average federal servant in Canada already makes over $100,000/year including their benefits and now stands at over a quarter million Canadians.  This is not sustainable and we will almost certainly not be getting value out of these additional hires. 

This is the sort of thing that would make me vote for Pierre Poilievre, despite my strong distaste for the man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Was just reading this article and it sort of scared me a bit.  I knew Justin was a spender (still believe his dad was our worst PM ever, at least until him) but the numbers are pretty stark. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-expansion-of-federal-civil-service-lacks-the-proper-measurements-for/

That's a paywall but the gist of it is that the federal public service has grown by an appalling ~25% since 2016 while the population grew around 7%.  The average federal servant in Canada already makes over $100,000/year including their benefits and now stands at over a quarter million Canadians.  This is not sustainable and we will almost certainly not be getting value out of these additional hires. 

This is the sort of thing that would make me vote for Pierre Poilievre, despite my strong distaste for the man.  

Just curious why is this story the straw that made you realize just how reckless the liberals have been with spending. I mean in just the pandemic years he spent well over 650 bil dollars, not to mention his yearly deficits over 8 years   i don't know about you but that got my attention pretty early.

Not sure where they got their figure of the age public service worker making more than 100 k or more, unless they are talking about those working directly with the government in Ottawa. I worked for them for 34 years in the military and 5 years as a civilian worker, and made not even close to those numbers and most years not even 1/2 of that.

In any case those workers do pay taxes as well, and in the military's case with a lot less rights than the average Canadian and they make a lot less than average of 100 k a year...  

Anyways i glad you have come to this conclusion now rather than later, i wish more people would see it for what it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Just curious why is this story the straw that made you realize just how reckless the liberals have been with spending. I mean in just the pandemic years he spent well over 650 bil dollars, not to mention his yearly deficits over 8 years   i don't know about you but that got my attention pretty early.

A few things:

1)  It was already clear that they were reckless spenders, but the scale and the rationale behind it was not.   

2) The steady and gradual increase in the spending (rather than, say, an increase to the baseline early on in his government to follow up on election promises or whatever) over 6-7 years clearly demonstrates a breakdown in budgetary constraint and discipline.

3) The structural nature of these deficits is a problem.  If it was infrastructure spending on productivity-enhancing projects, I'm generally on board.  When a large portion of that spending is instead going towards a growing bureaucracy and entrenched public sector union, you lose me.  The federal public service has grown since Trudeau's day by roughly the equivalent of the size of Canada's armed forces (which from what I understand hasn't really grown at all).   

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure where they got their figure of the age public service worker making more than 100 k or more, unless they are talking about those working directly with the government in Ottawa. I worked for them for 34 years in the military and 5 years as a civilian worker, and made not even close to those numbers and most years not even 1/2 of that.

I am basing my numbers on PBO Kevin Page's report from like 10+ years ago.  You would probably agree that this number is unlikely to have improved since then.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-finds-average-public-service-job-costs-114k-1.1174021

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

In any case those workers do pay taxes as well, and in the military's case with a lot less rights than the average Canadian and they make a lot less than average of 100 k a year...  

I don't think anyone here is going to seriously argue that our soldiers are overpaid.  The bloat of clerks and pencil pushers, on the other hand, averaging over $110k/year including benefits, is a joke.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Was just reading this article and it sort of scared me a bit.  I knew Justin was a spender (still believe his dad was our worst PM ever, at least until him) but the numbers are pretty stark. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-expansion-of-federal-civil-service-lacks-the-proper-measurements-for/

That's a paywall but the gist of it is that the federal public service has grown by an appalling ~25% since 2016 while the population grew around 7%.  The average federal servant in Canada already makes over $100,000/year including their benefits and now stands at over a quarter million Canadians.  This is not sustainable and we will almost certainly not be getting value out of these additional hires. 

This is the sort of thing that would make me vote for Pierre Poilievre, despite my strong distaste for the man.  

I think that your surprise at salary including benefits is misguided. If you take any employee working that has pension, vacation, parental leave and other mandatory benefits plus salary, you will be surprised as well. Normally benefits are not included when you speak about wages but they are substantial.  

The the average UAW salary is around $73 an hour, not including any benefits. Benefits add up fast. The auto industry is responsible for over 500,000 direct and indirect jobs across Canada.

Fact is 1/4 million out of 36 million is not that many and is very much sustainable. Considering that the feds have to have presences in every region/province/city/town/village in the country, the number is not surprising.

Do you actually think Pierre whatever will cut spending and public servants?? The last conservative PM had the largest cabinet ever.

Not defending but just putting perspective into the conversation.

Oh and, didn't read the article you linked because I could not get past the paywall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ExFlyer said:

I think that your surprise at salary including benefits is misguided. If you take any employee working that has pension, vacation, parental leave and other mandatory benefits plus salary, you will be surprised as well. Normally benefits are not included when you speak about wages but they are substantial.  

No, I understand salary plus benefits pretty well.  The folks who don't are union employees complaining about their wages whilst ignoring how valuable their benefit packages are.  

Just now, ExFlyer said:

The the average UAW salary is around $73 an hour, not including any benefits. Benefits add up fast. The auto industry is responsible for over 500,000 direct and indirect jobs across Canada.

Yes, and the UAW is a model for dysfunction and the primary reason why North American auto manufacturers have struggled since the late 1990's.  When I was in business school back in the early 2000's, we studied GM vs Toyota and GM at the time had a $40/hr labor cost disadvantage vs Toyota.  Meanwhile, when jobs became available at any Toyota plant, there'd be 100's of qualified applicants for every single position.  That's why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt during the financial meltdown. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, myata said:

It's not even compensation, the right question is: value. What is the value we're getting from it? Who wants to buy it in an open, competitive market? Nope. No answer.

Buy what? The bureaucracies?

Like every government program, the cost is bloated and then blown by several percentage points.

I wonder...if all the capable people are working, and all the incapable are on Public Dole, does the general public really care how much is spent...how much we're in debt...whether they have control over their lives or not...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, I understand salary plus benefits pretty well.  The folks who don't are union employees complaining about their wages whilst ignoring how valuable their benefit packages are.  

Yes, and the UAW is a model for dysfunction and the primary reason why North American auto manufacturers have struggled since the late 1990's.  When I was in business school back in the early 2000's, we studied GM vs Toyota and GM at the time had a $40/hr labor cost disadvantage vs Toyota.  Meanwhile, when jobs became available at any Toyota plant, there'd be 100's of qualified applicants for every single position.  That's why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt during the financial meltdown. 

I am only addressing your complaint about the public service and informing you that it is misguided and simple minded.

There are lots of salaries and benefits that exceed $100K. Even Ottawa bus drivers are over that  just to name another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

"indirect jobs" must have same hourly rate and benefits. Not minimal wage for example, no stable hours and no benefits. Let's add apples to horsesh*t and see what happens!

Who and what are you quoting? I never said anything about "indirect jobs".

I do not see or understand your point... if there is one.

Lets spell out what you are talking about, apples or horsesh*t?

57 minutes ago, myata said:

It's not even compensation, the right question is: value. What is the value we're getting from it? Who wants to buy it in an open, competitive market? Nope. No answer.

Again, what are you talking about??

Compensation is your salary and benefits for the job you do.

You may have a very good discussion and argument in your head but are for sure having a tough time getting it in a post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example: who would buy this healthcare for several K annually if there were competitive options of higher quality, no lines and possibly, lower cost?

If emergency medicine is pretty much all we can count on and sometimes, why couldn't we have emergency care insurance at a fraction of the cost and with choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a government run by people for whom budgets and budgeting are grubby exercises beneath their notice, and certainly not to be taken as a challenge to their grand ambitions of 'doing good'. Who could possibly care about the mere monetary cost of "doing good"? Besides, borrowing is cheap, or used to be, so what does it matter? It's not like Canadian voters care how much they borrow anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I largely disagree.

We in Canada are not in debt. Our federal government debt to GDP ratio is below 100%. (Our provinces have problems -Nfld in particular.)

Moreover, our State pension schemes (CPPIB, Teacher's, Caisse) have accumulated numbers - like Norway - to make legitimate claims.

===

The US federal government is different. Its debt to GDP ratio is close to 200% and rising. Of course, the individual States are solvent - but their pension schemes are pay as you go.

======

1. To be sustainable, the government debt to GDP ratio should rise slower than real GDP per capita. Otherwise, the government is a Ponzi scheme.

2. With his change to SALT (State and Local Taxes), Trump made America like Canada. I'm amazed that leftist Canadians don't support Trump.

-previously, Americans could deduct their State/Local taxes from their Federal tax bill

(in Canada, we can't do this - except in Quebec, sort of)

Trump abolished this federal tax deduction.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada:

You pay federal tax, provincial tax, property tax. Each level takes its cut whatever.

In the US:

You calculate state and local tax. Then, you calculate your federal tax - and reduce this amount because of the amount that you paid to state and locally. In the US, you can deduct these payments from your federal tax.

Trump wanted to change this - and make it like Canada.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

I largely disagree.

We in Canada are not in debt. Our federal government debt to GDP ratio is below 100%. (Our provinces have problems -Nfld in particular.)

Moreover, our State pension schemes (CPPIB, Teacher's, Caisse) have accumulated numbers - like Norway - to make legitimate claims.

===

The US federal government is different. Its debt to GDP ratio is close to 200% and rising. Of course, the individual States are solvent - but their pension schemes are pay as you go.

======

1. To be sustainable, the government debt to GDP ratio should rise slower than real GDP per capita. Otherwise, the government is a Ponzi scheme.

2. With his change to SALT (State and Local Taxes), Trump made America like Canada. I'm amazed that leftist Canadians don't support Trump.

-previously, Americans could deduct their State/Local taxes from their Federal tax bill

(in Canada, we can't do this - except in Quebec, sort of)

Trump abolished this federal tax deduction.

To claim that we are not in debt by comparing us to the US model?  Debt is debt.  The climbing interest rates have real consequences, how much it costs to service the debt.  A PM that has wildly spent and multiplied our debt can thank people like you for cheering him on. Get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, myata said:

For example: who would buy this healthcare for several K annually if there were competitive options of higher quality, no lines and possibly, lower cost?

If emergency medicine is pretty much all we can count on and sometimes, why couldn't we have emergency care insurance at a fraction of the cost and with choice?

What are you on about again???

Healthcare??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, August1991 said:

I largely disagree.

We in Canada are not in debt. Our federal government debt to GDP ratio is below 100%. (Our provinces have problems -Nfld in particular.)

This is a very superficial understanding of our debt, and largely due to the dishonesty of government and the uniqueness of our pension system. Most of the rest of the western world's pension plans invest in little more than government bonds. Ours is one of the very, very few which invest in the stock market. Thus through arcane accounting games the government is able to set off the value of the money in the Canada and Quebec pension plans against our debts to artificially lower our actual debt.

Also, in most western countries, the immense cost of the national healthcare program is born at the federal level, not at a sub federal level as we do here. That is what has driven our provinces into higher debt (for which the federal government is ultimately responsible anyway.).

Leaving out just the assets of the CPP and QPP our debt is fifth worst among industrialized western countries, behind only the US, Italy, Japan and Portugal, at 118% of GDP. As explained here and  here.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 1:52 PM, Moonbox said:

A few things:

1)  It was already clear that they were reckless spenders, but the scale and the rationale behind it was not.   

2) The steady and gradual increase in the spending (rather than, say, an increase to the baseline early on in his government to follow up on election promises or whatever) over 6-7 years clearly demonstrates a breakdown in budgetary constraint and discipline.

3) The structural nature of these deficits is a problem.  If it was infrastructure spending on productivity-enhancing projects, I'm generally on board.  When a large portion of that spending is instead going towards a growing bureaucracy and entrenched public sector union, you lose me.  The federal public service has grown since Trudeau's day by roughly the equivalent of the size of Canada's armed forces (which from what I understand hasn't really grown at all).   

I am basing my numbers on PBO Kevin Page's report from like 10+ years ago.  You would probably agree that this number is unlikely to have improved since then.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-finds-average-public-service-job-costs-114k-1.1174021

I don't think anyone here is going to seriously argue that our soldiers are overpaid.  The bloat of clerks and pencil pushers, on the other hand, averaging over $110k/year including benefits, is a joke.  

I think that was made very clear in his first couple of years in office. infact the total in the first 4 years was to reach  94 billion , thats before covid, and with very little to show for it. They did however put aside 125 billion for upgrades/ new infra structure but spent very little of that infact as of today they still have not spent a whole lot of it. 

Quote

And Trudeau’s promise of a balanced budget has been replaced by a planned total of $94 billion in federal deficits over the next four years.

Deficits and Debt: How the Liberals Created “Generation Screwed” (c2cjournal.ca)

Growing bureaucracy is needed to keep up with a growing population, look at the passport office for an example, if anything they need more people. That being said i doubt they are making over a 100 k a year...other than mangers i have never meet any public service worker that makes over 100 k, but perhaps Ottawa has the most of these high paying jobs. I worked as a civil public servant for 5 years and topped out at 48 k. even with my military pension i did not top 100k, even specialists were only making 60-70k.

I agree 100% if clerks are making over 100 K there is a problem period. 

And with all this going on i still find it very hard to believe most liberal voters defending Justins government like they do, most will say it is the devil you know... and yet this devil is out of control...with no sign of reigning it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 9:27 PM, August1991 said:

In Canada:

You pay federal tax, provincial tax, property tax. Each level takes its cut whatever.

In the US:

You calculate state and local tax. Then, you calculate your federal tax - and reduce this amount because of the amount that you paid to state and locally. In the US, you can deduct these payments from your federal tax.

Trump wanted to change this - and make it like Canada.

I don't think this is quite accurate.

I'm pretty sure that in states like NY and California there was a lot of extra state tax that could be deducted, but I don't think that was the case in Middle America.

I'm not an expert though, that could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 1:27 AM, August1991 said:

In Canada:

You pay federal tax, provincial tax, property tax. Each level takes its cut whatever.

 

Lets not forget all the other taxes federal and provincial.

Income tax, GST, corporates , excise tax, Carbon tax, fuel taxes, customs tax on imported goods, EI, CPP, not to mention hunting/fishing, boating, motorcycles, car licenses, road safety, registration for cars/ boats, motorbikes, etc, tire taxs, school taxes, garbage pick up, the list goes on and on.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 1:52 PM, Moonbox said:

A few things:

1)  It was already clear that they were reckless spenders, but the scale and the rationale behind it was not.   

2) The steady and gradual increase in the spending (rather than, say, an increase to the baseline early on in his government to follow up on election promises or whatever) over 6-7 years clearly demonstrates a breakdown in budgetary constraint and discipline.

3) The structural nature of these deficits is a problem.  If it was infrastructure spending on productivity-enhancing projects, I'm generally on board.  When a large portion of that spending is instead going towards a growing bureaucracy and entrenched public sector union, you lose me.  The federal public service has grown since Trudeau's day by roughly the equivalent of the size of Canada's armed forces (which from what I understand hasn't really grown at all).   

I am basing my numbers on PBO Kevin Page's report from like 10+ years ago.  You would probably agree that this number is unlikely to have improved since then.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-finds-average-public-service-job-costs-114k-1.1174021

I don't think anyone here is going to seriously argue that our soldiers are overpaid.  The bloat of clerks and pencil pushers, on the other hand, averaging over $110k/year including benefits, is a joke.  

I just wanted to add i see your point your trying to make here, after watching the below U tube...It's about the liberals twisting facts to make themselves look good.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 11:40 AM, sharkman said:

To claim that we are not in debt by comparing us to the US model?  Debt is debt.....

I disagree. We in Canada are not in debt. Our collective government debt to GDP ratio is below 100%. Like Norway, our pensions schemes have paper claims on future real wealth.

====

The US is different. As Krugman famously said, the US federal government is a tank with a pension scheme. Because of Obama, it now has a health plan.

While California has a surplus, unlike in Ontario or Alberta or Toronto, you can't reduce your federal tax by taxes paid to state, municipalities.

In the US, the federal pension scheme (Social Security) is pay-as-you-go, and it's far more generous than our CPP/OAS - do the numbers - even including GAINS.

Heck, the US Medicare (over 65) is better than our provincial health systems. 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...