Are you serious?
|
|
|
How much do you pay in Taxes?
- Thread starter RockerGuy
- Start date
Yes, I can do basic math (for US vs Canada)....
USA:
National debt per capita = $64K USD
Deficit per capita = $2100
Debt to GDP Ratio = 125%
Canada:
National debt per capita = $18K CDN or $14K USD
Deficit per capita = $840 CDN or $650 USD
Debt to GDP Ratio = 115%
Last I checked 64K is larger than 14K, 2100 is larger than 650, 125% is larger than 115%. In short, the US has way more national debt than Canada AND they are increasing what they have at a much higher rate (three times+), and will ramp that up even more in 2018+. The deficit numbers are today (Trump vs Trudeau). Debt is also today. And this is not just due to military spending (not even the top line item).
All of these numbers are available in each government's budget or if you are lazy from places like the OECD, CIA Fact Book, etc. The numbers change slightly from year to year. Basic math can be used to figure out per capita etc. There is no excuse for anyone to have a view on this but not know the basic numbers, it is just reported publicly available numbers and math.
I highly recommend spending some quality time on the CIA Fact Book and OECD sites, lots of interesting real (not alternative facts) data is available.
As for Harper, that one PM was responsible for 20% to 25% of all Canadian federal debt (one guy, 10 years). Again numbers are widely available, even from the Fraser Institute (although they try really hard to spin it). He also has the title at $55.6B one year deficit AND was running $30B deficits with oil at >$100/barrel. I am sure Justin Trudeau will take a kick at the title though.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
There is one big difference, the Harper deficits were part of a plan that kept the Canadian economy stable through a protracted and painful global recession. Canada had the only first world economy that did not contract, in fact it grew at rates that would be considered 'red hot' even in good times.
That economic strength carried on and is still there now. The stimulus spending is finished, we should be in massive surpluses cycle. The surpluses should be used to repay the money borrowed to support the stimulus, instead Trudeau's has taken that potential and added a whole lot of deficit spending to fund social programs. It makes no sense.
Another thing to ponder is the permanence of social spending which unlike stimulus spending, is nearly impossible to shut off.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. The US has a greater capacity to borrow and pay, they are considerably more productive than Canadians (divide GDP/population).
Again, you have to look at a few important things. The departing Liberals tossed more than $300B worth of stink bombs on their way out: social spending commitments announced in 2004 jumped from $65B to $100B/year (these are the things Trudeau is adding now, if he's voted out the next gov't pays), jumped OAS commitments by 50%, resumption of transfer payments to provinces...
Not blaming it all on the Liberal stink bombs (this is always part of the Liberal exit plan, look at what Wynne is doing right now). Harper did make mistakes and could have done more to control spending.
My real point is you can't compare apples to oranges and you can't use 'Simple Simon' comparisons. Both can produce the conclusion you are after..
What do small jungle tribes do when a member refuses to hunt and gather? Stop giving him food and shelter?
The problem is that socialism gets harder to police as the network grows.
Harper had to work through a large recession (but not so large in Canada). So did Trudeau Sr. (70s), so did Chrétien (caught the tail end of the early 90s and dotcom)--and so did the Ontario Liberals for that matter. Prior to the recession Harper also was pushing hard for US style deregulation of Canadian banks (so they could compete with the US), if he got his way we would have been hit like the US.
The argument each way, did he help Canada avoid a major meltdown or did we avoid a major meltdown despite of him, or somewhere in between.
In the end, Harper would have been a fiscal super star if not for useless tax cuts pointed at his base. Not doing the GST cut alone would have balanced his books for all but a few of the years. GST is mostly a pass through for most businesses and for the average Canadian it worked out to be about $20 to $30 a month in savings.
As a 1%er (his base) I saved a lot more or course, but the economy did not benefit much from that. hey I voted for him (technically his party) three times, right up until they went all bigotry as a platform. he held back the bigots in the party for as long as he could, in the end they sank him. But he also created a near structural deficit for himself (and us) with tax cuts for his base.
The argument each way, did he help Canada avoid a major meltdown or did we avoid a major meltdown despite of him, or somewhere in between.
In the end, Harper would have been a fiscal super star if not for useless tax cuts pointed at his base. Not doing the GST cut alone would have balanced his books for all but a few of the years. GST is mostly a pass through for most businesses and for the average Canadian it worked out to be about $20 to $30 a month in savings.
As a 1%er (his base) I saved a lot more or course, but the economy did not benefit much from that. hey I voted for him (technically his party) three times, right up until they went all bigotry as a platform. he held back the bigots in the party for as long as he could, in the end they sank him. But he also created a near structural deficit for himself (and us) with tax cuts for his base.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Yup - they's what the do. If he becomes a lazy burden he gets with the program or voted off the planet.
Socialism a low survivorship rate -- it only survives as long as the iron fist needed to rule it.
J_F
Guest
reading a bit of bio on Harper is interesting, and some commentary that goes along with that
son of an Imperial Oil accountant, grew up in Scarborough
due to good grades and help from dad, he got into U of T Trinity, Canadian Ivy League
young Stephen didn't fit in well at Trinity, the hazing and teasing from the offspring of Canadian Elite
Trudeau types, deeply hurt the young, introverted snow flake, son of an industrial man
so he packed in U of T and daddy got him a job with Imperial Oil in Alberta
this suited Stephen much better and he ended up back in Uni and completed his degree
it explains a lot about the man, his hatred of the Eastern Establishment
the vindictiveness, and shunning of his home province
and deciding it was good policy to let the countries economy turn into a gas station
after he became PM, he made the statement:
"after I'm done, you won't recognize Canada"
luckily we were done with him first
son of an Imperial Oil accountant, grew up in Scarborough
due to good grades and help from dad, he got into U of T Trinity, Canadian Ivy League
young Stephen didn't fit in well at Trinity, the hazing and teasing from the offspring of Canadian Elite
Trudeau types, deeply hurt the young, introverted snow flake, son of an industrial man
so he packed in U of T and daddy got him a job with Imperial Oil in Alberta
this suited Stephen much better and he ended up back in Uni and completed his degree
it explains a lot about the man, his hatred of the Eastern Establishment
the vindictiveness, and shunning of his home province
and deciding it was good policy to let the countries economy turn into a gas station
after he became PM, he made the statement:
"after I'm done, you won't recognize Canada"
luckily we were done with him first
|
|
|
|
|