Federal Budget 2007: More & Still More Government

[Saturn]

Edmonton Sun column thinks the budget could end in a deficit.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/03...796829-sun.html

On Monday, Flaherty predicted Canada's surplus in the coming fiscal year -- April 1 to March 31, 2008 -- will be a mere $300 million, after an obligatory payment of $3 billion on our existing $472.3-billion national debt. The year after that, there will be no surplus after the $3-billion debt payment.

In other words, in a time of what Flaherty describes as fiscal plenty, he is predicting that for the next two years the Conservatives will have almost no financial cushion to deal with something unexpected -- like a recession.

The likelihood of a recession is not to be taken lightly. American and Canadian belief that the housing market could not not go down is already showing repercussions. A downturn in consumer spending is a distinct possibility.

That's precisely how the Harris government ended up leaving a $6 billion deficit in Ontario. Project using the most optimistic scenarios, leave no cushion, and when the optimistic scenarios don't work out - well, you leave a mess. And you hide it and lie about it for as long as possible.

[scribblet]

That's precisely how the Harris government ended up leaving a $6 billion deficit in Ontario. Project using the most optimistic scenarios, leave no cushion, and when the optimistic scenarios don't work out - well, you leave a mess.

They didn''t leave a $6 billion deficit, that was creative accounting by the Liberals. Their terms of reference for the audit were different, and they also included the Ontario Hydro deficit which normally wasn't included.

[Saturn]

Actually in constant dollars income in two-parent families has gone up since the 60s. I think expectations is the biggest reason for the change. In the 60s houses were 1500sq ft, and people had a single car and a single TV. Today they expect more, and are willing to trade one spouse at home in order to get those things. So when people say they can't "afford" to have one spouse stay home, it is usually because of the other choices they make.

The biggest reason for the change is that people smartened up and currently have a lot more things to live for and enjoy than locking themselves up at home to become baby factories. What's the benefit of locking up yourself at home and raising 4-5 kids? Absolutely none.

[Saturn]

Well, by trading the at-home spouse they also trade away any realistic possibility of having 3 or more children.

Also, you only get one chance to spend the pre-school years with your kids, so that is traded away as well.

Why the heck would anyone want to have 3+ children? Also, do you greatly enjoy sitting home with 3+ screaming kids? I bet you don't.

[geoffrey]

My main objection to the federal budget concerned all the niggling measures that were "tax cuts" for the anointed.

Such as the one Charest is going to cut you? Not because it makes any sense, but because it will buy your neighbours votes for the PLQ and the CPC?

[August1991]

Since the 1960s, there have been changes in gender roles and expectations in the home and workforce. The time frames to accomplish tasks in the home has dropped such as cleaning clothes and making meals. Subsequently, more women have entered the workforce because time factors no longer dictate the one must hunt while the other cooks.

I largely agree but I'll quibble about cause and effect. Women entered the paid labour force because wages rose and the opportunity cost of staying at home was consequently higher.

A stay-at-home spouse is now a costly proposition - except in some marriages where a busy high-earner needs in effect a personal assistant/shopper.

In general though, likes marry likes and so smart, beautiful people who can command high salaries generally marry other smart, beautiful people.

I have often thought that if a government were serious about equality in society, it would force smart, beautiful people to marry dumb, ugly people.

I often think that if people had $4 or $5 thousand more they might not have more children but spend it on more stuff.

As economists say, important decisions occur in the marginal cases. It's the couple that is hesitating about having a child or having another one that matters. A few thousand dollars more might sway their decision.

Why the heck would anyone want to have 3+ children? Also, do you greatly enjoy sitting home with 3+ screaming kids? I bet you don't.

I tend to agree. In 1907, a stay-at-home spouse had few other choices. In 2007, the same potential parent has many good alternatives.

[Pat Coghlan]

Well, by trading the at-home spouse they also trade away any realistic possibility of having 3 or more children.

Also, you only get one chance to spend the pre-school years with your kids, so that is traded away as well.

Why the heck would anyone want to have 3+ children? Also, do you greatly enjoy sitting home with 3+ screaming kids? I bet you don't.

They only scream for the first few years, and then only occasionally.

Actually, we have 5 children. The oldest turns 18 at the end of March. The youngest (twins) are 6. I was single for about 10 years before settling down. Life in general is much more interesting with a large family, especially at dinner time!

Somebody has to look after the kids. Funny, I don't hear you complaining how people should look after their own kids instead of expecting somebody else to do it.

[August1991]

My main objection to the federal budget concerned all the niggling measures that were "tax cuts" for the anointed.

Such as the one Charest is going to cut you? Not because it makes any sense, but because it will buy your neighbours votes for the PLQ and the CPC?

I suppose.

Federal government spending is rising faster than Canadians can generate the income and that's my main point.

Harper would quibble that much of this federal "spending" gets returned to individuals as cash. My point was that it depends on fitting the criteria Harper decides. And it also depends on filling out alot of forms and keeping receipts and so on.

Charest's tax cut is of the same sort.

Why didn't Harper just cut everyone's taxes, including people in Quebec? Well, how would he do that? Which taxes to cut? (eg. Harper could have announced a "Quebec Resident Tax Deduction" just like the "Northern Resident Tax Deduction". Harper could conceivably argue that being a francophone in North America imposes additional costs that other Canadians don't have to assume.)

----

Incidentally, I'm surprised that Charest hasn't used the obvious argument to defend these cuts. He should say that the fiscal imbalance forced him to raise taxes in Quebec higher than they should be to guarantee a decent level of government service. With more money available, he can now lower taxes.

The argument is spurious but so is the fiscal imbalance argument.

[jdobbin]

They only scream for the first few years, and then only occasionally.

Actually, we have 5 children. The oldest turns 18 at the end of March. The youngest (twins) are 6. I was single for about 10 years before settling down. Life in general is much more interesting with a large family, especially at dinner time!

Somebody has to look after the kids. Funny, I don't hear you complaining how people should look after their own kids instead of expecting somebody else to do it.

You're right. Someone has to look after the children. Congrats on the five.

As I said, someone with $4 or $5 might have another child. However, attitudes have changed somewhat and someone earning that bit of extra cash is just as likely to spend it on a consumer item.