Flaherty lays out his vision

[Remiel]

Didn't you guys go through all this, " Jim Flaherty is an incompetent fool! " stuff when he first became finance minster? I don't recall him putting in a spectacular performance as Ontario finance minister, so I would of thought it might of come up on these boards.

[geoffrey]

Like I said, I supported the GST cut.

Income tax revenues are up 10% this year. Is Jim going to cut them by 8% for us next year (10-inflation)??? Unlikely.

So the government is taking more of our money... spending more of our money. Why not just elect Liberals? We get the same result but a balanced investment climate as well.

Geoff, you're right.

Flaherty should cut taxes and let individual Canadians decide whether to pay down the debt. If someone wants to pay the government debt, they can buy government bonds with their tax refund and pay back the debt. Others can decide to spend the money differently.

Why should Flaherty decide for all Canadians? We live in a democracy. Flaherty should give individuals the money and let them decide to buy Canada Savings Bonds, pay the debt, or not.

Agreed.

For me, and I hope for all Canadians, the economy is issue #1. Especially taxes.

Of all the things that can affect you, gays getting married, our troops combating terror overseas, health care waiting lines going from 6 months to 7 months... at the end of the day your paycheque still matters most. What do you get to keep? That's what Canadians care about, at least where I'm from, and for a government to get a big fail in this category, should mean their defeat in my opinion.

[August1991]

About the only thing good about this is that Bob Rae would be worse:

Flaherty, by contrast, commits to no more ambitious measure of restraint than to hold federal program spending increases to, "on average," less than the rate of growth of the economy. If the economy grew at 7%, spending could rise by 6.9%. On average: Some years it might grow more, some less. In the current fiscal year, for example, the Tories plan to raise spending by more than $12-billion, or 7.1%. That's 7.1%, on top of the extraordinary 47% increase in spending over the previous six years. Put another way, since the 2000 budget, in which Paul Martin promised to hold spending to no more than 3% per year, spending in fact grew at an average of 6.7% per year. And after all that, the Tories propose, not only to add to it, but to accelerate it.

Andrew Coyne

[jdobbin]

About the only thing good about this is that Bob Rae would be worse.

Andrew Coyne

The right wing telling people that it would only be worse under the Liberals is starting to ring a little hollow.

[geoffrey]

About the only thing good about this is that Bob Rae would be worse.

Andrew Coyne

The right wing telling people that it would only be worse under the Liberals is starting to ring a little hollow.

I agree. That being said, then who are the real fiscal conservatives?

[jdobbin]

I agree. That being said, then who are the real fiscal conservatives?

I hope that whoever becomes leader appoints someone who will watch our finances like a hawk. I can remember the scare tactics about Chretien becoming prime minister and how the debt would go through the roof. Instead, the deficit was eliminated.

[Saturn]

Flaherty is doing just what he did in Ontario several years ago. Used gimmicks (the most optimistic scenario to make Ontario look richer than it was and then spent all the "extra" money like a drunken sailor. Then reality hit, his bubble burst, and Ontario turned out to be buried in deficits. Now he is looking to do the same to federal finances.

[Saturn]

About the only thing good about this is that Bob Rae would be worse.

Andrew Coyne

The right wing telling people that it would only be worse under the Liberals is starting to ring a little hollow.

I agree. That being said, then who are the real fiscal conservatives?

Any government will have to spend to stay in power. The question is where this spending will go. Will we spend more on military equipment and tax cuts for the rich or will we spend more on health care and education. With the liberals and conservatives running the show, we'll be spending way more on the first than on the latter. In the last 20 years, the records of conservative and liberal governments across the country is exactly the same: both parties have managed to balance their budgets (or have a surplus) about 20% of the time. The remaining close to 80%, both parties have had deficits. Strangely enough, the odd one out is the NDP, balancing budgets twice as often as the liberals and conservatives. The only explanation I can see for this is that everyone is watching NDP governments much more closely when it comes to money. The conservatives are "fiscally responsible" just because the newspapers tell us so, so we don't pay much attention to what they do with their finances.

[Alexandra]

In the last 20 years, the records of conservative and liberal governments across the country is exactly the same: both parties have managed to balance their budgets (or have a surplus) about 20% of the time. The remaining close to 80%, both parties have had deficits. Strangely enough, the odd one out is the NDP, balancing budgets twice as often as the liberals and conservatives. The only explanation I can see for this is that everyone is watching NDP governments much more closely when it comes to money.

Which NDP governments are you referring to which have balanced their budgets twice as often as the liberals and conservatives?

.

[Saturn]

All NDP governments over the last 20 years. I guess that would include several in each of BC, Sask and Man, and one in Ontario.

[jdobbin]

All NDP governments over the last 20 years. I guess that would include several in each of BC, Sask and Man, and one in Ontario.

The last NDP governments in B.C. ran consecutive deficits. That was within your 20 year timeframe.

[August1991]

Any government will have to spend to stay in power. The question is where this spending will go.

The question is not where the money goes. The problem is that government spending is rising faster than economic growth and has been, more or less, for the past 50 years or so. That's not true just in Canada but in other western countries too. The default position is "spend more money".

When a Reagan or a Thatcher comes along and tries not to stop the growth (not really cut it), they get a reputation for being to the right of Attila the Hun. Thatcher got it right when she said that eventually, the government will run out of "other people's money". That's what happened in the Soviet Union.

This issue of balancing budgets is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether the government borrows or balances its budgets, what matters is what governments buy. Flaherty plans to spend money as fast as Canadians can earn it.

One reason government spending rises is because government basically doesn't work. That's the point Tom Axworthy in the article in the other thread. (The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. You spend more but you get less.)

An example? Government health care budgets are increasing yet more Canadians don't have a regular doctor, and wait times for even general check ups now take months.

[geoffrey]

Any government will have to spend to stay in power.

Wrong. Most people would be much more happy getting more of their paycheque to keep!

Only 6ish% of our country is unemployed of the lazy variety. The other 94% all want a break.

[Saturn]

Any government will have to spend to stay in power. The question is where this spending will go.

The question is not where the money goes. The problem is that government spending is rising faster than economic growth and has been, more or less, for the past 50 years or so. That's not true just in Canada but in other western countries too. The default position is "spend more money".

When a Reagan or a Thatcher comes along and tries not to stop the growth (not really cut it), they get a reputation for being to the right of Attila the Hun. Thatcher got it right when she said that eventually, the government will run out of "other people's money". That's what happened in the Soviet Union.

This issue of balancing budgets is a red herring. It doesn't matter whether the government borrows or balances its budgets, what matters is what governments buy. Flaherty plans to spend money as fast as Canadians can earn it.

One reason government spending rises is because government basically doesn't work. That's the point Tom Axworthy in the article in the other thread. (The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. You spend more but you get less.)

An example? Government health care budgets are increasing yet more Canadians don't have a regular doctor, and wait times for even general check ups now take months.

Health care costs are rising across the board in developed countries because populations are getting older (larger and larger proportion of the pop'ns is 65+) and because treatments are becoming more expensive. So we have more sick people and it's more expensive to treat them. The only way to fix this is to kill of some seniors or not treat more and more people. Or both. We've done some of the second - it's more difficult to get treatment. But do we have to start killing people to keep health-care costs under control?

[Saturn]

Any government will have to spend to stay in power.

Wrong. Most people would be much more happy getting more of their paycheque to keep!

Only 6ish% of our country is unemployed of the lazy variety. The other 94% all want a break.

On the contrary, I think that my taxes are well spent. It could be better spent but it pays for a lot of things Canadians need. As a matter of fact, I'd pay more taxes if my taxes would go into things like education and public transportation, not buying votes in Quebec or subsidies to the oil and gas industries. The reality is that if I got to keep more of my paycheck, I'd probably blow it on cruises and junk I don't really need, and when it came time to pay my $250,000 hospital bill I would have to sell my home. Ok, I wouldn't blow it all on junk I don't need but most of us (Canadians) would.

[geoffrey]

On the contrary, I think that my taxes are well spent. It could be better spent but it pays for a lot of things Canadians need. As a matter of fact, I'd pay more taxes if my taxes would go into things like education and public transportation, not buying votes in Quebec or subsidies to the oil and gas industries. The reality is that if I got to keep more of my paycheck, I'd probably blow it on cruises and junk I don't really need, and when it came time to pay my $250,000 hospital bill I would have to sell my home. Ok, I wouldn't blow it all on junk I don't need but most of us (Canadians) would.

I need no further evidence of my cultural divide from Eastern and Western Canada.

Most Canadian's don't need money, they'll just spend it on beer and popcorn, right Saturn? Too bad, they earned that money, and if they want to spend it on beer, let them. It's not the government's duty to increase taxation to prevent silly spending.

[normanchateau]

He raised our taxes, both on trusts and personal taxes. Income tax revenue skyrocketed 10% this year.

His vision is very murky, if 1) he believes he's a conservative, because he's not... and 2) he thinks that Canada can remain competitive internationally with a far more complex, regressive and outdated system of taxation.

Sure he's a conservative...just not a fiscal conservative.

[scribblet]

Most Canadian's don't need money, they'll just spend it on beer and popcorn, right Saturn? Too bad, they earned that money, and if they want to spend it on beer, let them. It's not the government's duty to increase taxation to prevent silly spending.

Fortunately both Harper and Flaherty are showing their fiscal conservatism if only by setting a prudent direction for the federal treasury. The statement does show that the CPC understandz that if there is too large of a surplus, there is too much money coming in - that we are overtaxed and some of it should be returned to the taxpayers. At least it beats liberal or NDP creative ways to spend it or waste it.

[August1991]

Fortunately both Harper and Flaherty are showing their fiscal conservatism if only by setting a prudent direction for the federal treasury.

If that were only true...

Take a look at this graph by Andrew Coyne of federal government programme spending.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In order to gain power politicians promise to spend money, once in power they spend money. The fly in the ointment is that it is our money they are playing with.

People don't seem to figure this out very well. In order to pay for all this the government taxes us. When they can't get enough from us in taxes to cover the expenses they simply borrow money from the banks and then have us pay for it later. Not a good plan, but it is the plan they use.

[August1991]

When they can't get enough from us in taxes to cover the expenses they simply borrow money from the banks and then have us pay for it later.

They don't borrow it from the banks, they borrow it from us - what do you think the CPP and most private pension plans and insurance companies hold?

It is very, very hard for a politician to say no. In fact, the kind of people who say no never become politicians. The people who gravitate to democratic politics are the kind of people who love the excitement of saying yes.

[geoffrey]

Take a look at this graph by Andrew Coyne of federal government programme spending.

Fascinating. The only real cut ever was done by Martin. Hmmm...