If you're buying, I'm in. If I'm buy, I'm having all of your teeth pulled.
My neighbor has 3 Mercedes Benzs, 2 Porshes and a Lamborghini, in his Mansion's driveway. Why don't we all try and emulate him?
|
|
|
Return of Ford Nation
- Thread starter Baggsy
- Start date
If you're buying, I'm in. If I'm buy, I'm having all of your teeth pulled.
My neighbor has 3 Mercedes Benzs, 2 Porshes and a Lamborghini, in his Mansion's driveway. Why don't we all try and emulate him?
Mad Mike
Well-known member
You can't directly compare our Medicare to the European systems. Europeans are a mix of systems -- some are true 2 tier, many have co-pays, others are like Obamacare.
I guess you have to define benefit. These things are all paid for, so if you add another level of administration (govt), you're going to increase the cost. If you take a $1.10 from a taxpayer for dentistry that cost him a dollar when he brought his own wallet, who wins?
is your neighbour a dentist?
Perhaps not, but impossible? Clearly not.
I'm more in favor of dental for low income families than I am for prescription meds for under 18's. I'm a card carrying conservative, there I said it, however the state of dental care for youth in some communities is atrocious and it might be a socially responsible thing to look into it. The health implications are long term and reach well beyond the scope of a nice smile.
We'll pay tens of thousands for associated OHIP bills anyway, might as well head some of that off.
We'll pay tens of thousands for associated OHIP bills anyway, might as well head some of that off.
I agree with this. Low income families really do need subsidised medical and dental care. It'll save us more money in the long run to treat them when things get really bad. It'll unclog the system a lot!
JTR
Well-known member
Listen guys, I don't think anybody is hailing harper. And it is definitely unrealistic to think balancing can happen without cuts, but the balancing MUST happen. We are already spending a ******** of budget just to maintain the interest on the debt, and not touching principle. That in itself is enough of a problem, but the current failboat is making Billions of dollars in promises every week now. We need that balancing, we NEED cuts. Is she promising the money for good things? Here and there, sure. Does she have the money to promise? Hell no, never will. Our provincial government is carrying the highest non-national debt in the entire world, so it's no-longer a matter of deciding if the latest promise is for a good cause, it doesn't matter when you can't afford it.
Somebody needs to start denying them credit. And that is going to be up to us.
Somebody needs to start denying them credit. And that is going to be up to us.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Wynne just tied McGinty on fiscal performance for a Canadian politician. Of the hundreds of provincial and federal leaders across the country since confederation they rank last and last (tied).
It won't continue, it can't. Since McGinty took office, Ontario Liberals increased provincial debt from $132B(2002) to approx $315B(2018) -- that's more debt than Greece accumulated in the same period -- we all know how that ended.
My guess is the majority of the people in Ontario agree they need to go (and the polls support that statement). The issue at hand is the other two choices also stink, just stink different.
To balance the budget, one of three things need to happen (pick one):
Raise revenue/taxes and keep spending the same.
Cut spending and keep taxes the same.
Both raise revenue/taxes and cut spending.
It is a simple problem (in theory), Ontario is spending more than it is making.
I don't know if a) or b) are feasible anymore. Things have gotten so screwed up, that I suspect the debt will keep rising even if c) is implemented. The cuts/increased revenue required to actually make forward progress are pretty damned drastic and by the very nature of the political system probably impossible to implement.
EDIT:
Ontario debt is ~50% of GDP or approximately 225% of gross provincial government revenue. That is without (I think?) accounting for the spending spree that Wynnebag has been on the past few months. Realistic repayment time would be decades assuming that was a priority during the entire period and nobody blew another tonne of money at the track (which again, given politicians is impossible).
Last edited:
Delete
Sounds about right, and if you subtract those with essentially no ability to pay towards that, you are probably looking at at least $50,000 per person with the ability to pay. And that's just provincial, smh.
It is a tough problem, and we still have federal debt to worry about. Next, the interest we pay per year is also killer.
Plan C implemented in a way that also maximizes economic growth (improving the debt to GDP ratio) is the best solution--none of the parties are proposing this actual solution (in a way that will actually work).
That sounds about right, add to that another 18K for the federal debt, $41K CDN total for the people of Ontario.
But for some perspective, the US federal only debt is 68K per person, in USD! (87K CDN give or take).
Mad Mike
Well-known member
You forgot the most likely option: Cut spending, cut taxes, increase revenues
JTR
Well-known member
And to put that into perspective, they're a nation. Defense budget, foreign aid, and other financial responsibilities that a province simply does not have.
Huh? For the most part taxes and revenues are identical (unless they want to spin them as premiums for political reason). Are you talking about reducing tax rates while increasing the size of the pool to increase revenue?
He is talking about trickle down economics, proven not to work in this context. Big reason the US is in so much more debt at the federal level (lower taxes anyone).
Economists have put numbers to the Laffer Curve, peak GDP growth is somewhere around 35% taxation (not peak tax rate but overall rate). Peak revenue is at 70% taxation. We are already (just) on the low side of the 35%, any reduction in taxes will reduce growth. Back when these concepts were first floated no one could predict the curve other than zero revenue at 0% taxes and 100% taxes, we (well some) know better today.
In the end GDP growth is a complex thing. One of the things trickle down economics theorizes--that cutting taxes will give more money to the high middle, wealthy and to businesses that will then spend all that money back in the economy... problem, not all that money is spent and some of the money that is spent is spent outside the country (not all contributes directly to GDP and economic growth).
Technically almost every dollar the government spends (even completely wastes) contributes to GDP. That is why 35% is seen as the peak for GDP growth. Sort of a sweet spot between revenue for spending and money left in the economy for the private sector.
Another simple (very simple) angle, if say we had 90% tax (we do not BTW) the tax is stifling the economy, lets say the resulting the economy is 100x, the revenue will be 90x. If we dropped the taxes to some lower rate, say 50% the economy will grow. The new economy is say 200x, so revenue is now 100x (lower taxes, larger revenue).
But if we have a marginal personal tax rate of ~33% and a corporate tax rate of ~25% and we cut them, the results are not increased GDP growth, it is slower growth (Laffer Curve).
Now I say trickle down, the proper term is supply side BUT that would imply something less bonkers...
Last edited:
JTR
Well-known member
Oh, I don't know, there are other ways to generate revenue. Even ways of getting two birds stoned at once. For example, developing some of this immense relatively bare land mass into housing and collecting rent, while simultaneously relieving strain on the current housing market. Should generate revenue, create jobs, and with increased supply it should make housing more affordable across the board. There's 3 birds right there.
They could also invest in making people more productive, reducing social assistance strain while simultaneously increasing tax revenue as a happy accident. More people paying into the pot may also eventually mean that everybody can pay a smaller share(or receive greater benefit).
The last time I was laid off, it was a long one. Long enough to make me consider retraining for another field. That was when I made an observation. While the liberals(both fed and prov.) have been working to increase social dependence, they've been reducing assistance to those who actually want to gain skills and employment. E.I. has scrapped the training assistance programs. Ontario works has scrapped the resource centers. And the public seems blind to it.
Canada lands already does this (sort of). They get public land in desirable locations approved for development and then sell the valuable parcel to someone to build on which generates revenue for the government to spend. I'm not sure housing that is priced grossly different from the market can succeed. The available pool will be so small so as to have no effect on the overall market and someone has to pay for the land and development. On this one, assuming that the prices attained for the land are fair market value, I think the guberment may have it right with converting land into many millions of dollars. If they try to keep it as a super low revenue site, you end up with situations like the Mississauga trailer park that required sewer replacement and it was cheaper for it to be abandoned than install services that would never be paid for by the dwellings supported. IIRC it is undergoing redevelopment with something like 6x the density. The residents complained they couldn't afford anywhere else in Miss. No chit, living in the GTA is crazy expensive.
I'm all for paying to help people be more productive. If done properly, this can be a great approach. There needs to be a clear path between the training and the payback for me to buy in though. I have seen too many people wander through life supported by the government teet (multiple subsidized uni degrees with no job prospects, lazy people on odsp, factory workers and landscapers on the pogy rollercoaster etc.). If you didn't finish high school and GM kicked you out at 50, you are facked without some retraining support. You will probably never make the same money, but at least you have a chance at supporting your house and family if you ditch all the financed toys and can get a job that pays a decent amount above minimum.
|
|
|
|
|