TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Yay! There's not going to be another federal election... yet
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Not to mention that City of Toronto is being run by a retard. Didn't he wanted to take 100 million bucks out of city budget to invest in something?
Ah, John A. Macdonald, would you cry or laugh your ass off if you saw the state of Canadian politics today...

MarkT: have a look at this study.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_100_english.pdf

To summarize: the more you give money to a govt, the worst the management gets.

Worst govts of Canada are Alberta and the Federal govt for being off target in both planned spendings and incomes.

quote:

Originally posted by malek MarkT, the point is, I prefer managing my own money than send it to a govt that will throw it out of the window. The more money you give to a govt, the more they're gonna go overboard.

Agreed 100%! I would rather know where my money was going than give more to the government. I, for one, welcome the GST reduction.

Yohan: I'm surprised no one answered your question lol I'm sure a lot of libs would be screaming bloody murder if the Conservatives failed to come through with promises hahaha

quote:

Originally posted by malek MarkT: have a look at this study. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_100_english.pdf To summarize: the more you give money to a govt, the worst the management gets. Worst govts of Canada are Alberta and the Federal govt for being off target in both planned spendings and incomes.

hmmm...I quickly skimmed through the study and that doesn't seem to be the summary at all. In fact it doesn't even have anything to do with how much you give the gov't...so how did you extrapolate that conclusion

The summary is that gov'ts are poor forcasters with regard to both revenues and expenditures...and in times where there are unforseen revenues, they simply spend more instead of sticking to their spending targets.

It also says that as gov't grows, and certain programs grow (like health care), it becomes more difficult to forecast and account for revenues and expenses.

That's very different than suggesting the gov't is either inefficient or becomes more wasteful the more money you give it.

am I wrong or did I miss something?

I'm suggesting that the gov't should spend the 1% GST cut in the right way, rather than hand it back to the very people who think it's a great idea, but in the next breath bitch about the latest transit fare increase, rising tuition costs, rising property taxes and program cuts!

I'm suggesting that those who consume and spend the most on GST taxable items (the wealthy) don't need a fucking tax break...those are EXACTLY the people who do NOT need a tax break, lol.

think about it, folks. How much money did you spend this year on GST taxable items (i.e. not rent/mortgage, not tuition, not most groceries)? How much did you REALLY save with that 1% cut so far? How much will you really save with another 1%? More than what your NOT going to save with the TTC fare hike? a property tax increase? tuition increases? user fees for things the city can no longer afford to pay for.

the GST reduction, IMHO, is not the best things to do right now.

Its easy to read a few sentences here and there, its much harder to connect the dots and put in context the findings of this study.

The two worst govt (Alberta by a huge margin, Federal in raw numbers) went overboard because both had incredible amounts of money coming in!


While the two best govt for being spot with their budgeting were Quebec and Newfoundland, two cash strapped provinces!

Don't you find this weird??

The richest govt, went way overboard with spendings, while the ones that barely made the year had almost no overspendings...

The more money you send to a govt, the more ways he'll find to waste it.

The way I see it, sure on our roughly 25k-30k$ or so of annual spendings on gaz, food and clothing, 250$ will stay in my pockets.

If I was in the govt, I would have sent that 1% to the provinces for them to decide what to do with it! Some provinces need it, some others don't!

1% = 5 billions a year in Canada, thats a rough 1.2 Billion for Quebec, which would be well spent on roads/metro/bridges, etc.

But if Harper has no balls for doing such a noble thing, and is in need of political cred (people like a govt who lower taxes), then so be it, I will gladly accept that money and will be happy about it.

infrastructure > tax break > * > program spendings

quote:

Originally posted by drgoodvibe I'm no bleeding heart liberal I just think strictly on fairness. Everyone should pay taxes the same in proportion to their income.

Except that's really not fair at all - it's punishing people for developing more skills and working harder. Only bleeding-heart liberals consider people to be victims of circumstance with no direct control over their income.

Having said that, I'm with you that he shouldn't be focusing so much on the GST. A GST cut forces people to spend their money in order to see any benefit, whereas an income tax cut would reward those with the discipline to save and invest their money. Unfortunately, income tax cuts are even less popular with the liberals, as they're perceived to "benefit the rich" even more than a GST cut (both untrue, it's the middle class that suffers the most under the current tax system). If you actually reason through it logically, it's easy to see why an income tax cut is better for the less affluent than a GST cut, but as a rule, we aren't dealing with a very logical body of voters.

Mark: I'm not bitching about tuition costs or program cuts. The TTC and property taxes are both the city's responsibility, not the Federal government's, and if people had a problem with those, they shouldn't have re-elected Miller. As far as I'm concerned, the TTC is complete shit and should be sold off to a private company.

Also, the more money you "give" a government, the bigger that government is, by definition, which is precisely the inefficiency the study was talking about. A higher budget means more staff to manage the budget, more people to calculate and collect taxes, more outsourced contracts, more people to manage and oversee the contracts, etc. As the headcount grows, so does the inefficiency; this is pretty basic economics, more heads means more specialization and more difficult communication, all of which interrupts the normal flow of business activity.

Add to that the fact the governments have no direct accountability (yeah, to the voters, sure, whatever) and you have staggering inefficiency with larger, big-budget governments.

I don't know what the "right way" is for the government to spend its money, but I definitely know what the wrong way to spend my money is: hand it over to someone who offers precisely zero ROI on it by spending it on products and services that are both poor in quality and don't generate enough revenue to cover their own costs.

The GST isn't "revenue". Harper is not "ditching" it by returning it to the people who did not pay it voluntarily. It's not the government's money, it's OUR money.

That was perfect.

Diginut says it all

Let's also remember there was no such thing as GST before Mulroney introduced it to make up for budget shortfalls, and which happened to be one of the election promises Cretin made to get elected but realized that Canada need that money from GST.

But now that we no longer need the GST as much, I welcome the GST cut.

Another thing the govt should concentrate on is to pay off some of the huge debt Canada has. The amount of money going towards interest payment is pretty damn sucky

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Another thing the govt should concentrate on is to pay off some of the huge debt Canada has. The amount of money going towards interest payment is pretty damn sucky

Last I remember reading (a few years ago), over 30% of Canada's tax revenue went straight into debt interest payments.

I understand the nuances of cash flow and debt management, and there's nothing wrong with being in debt per se, but that number is too high. Next time you do your taxes or have them done, think about how over 10% of your income is paying for someone else's debt. If you made $50K last year, you spent $5000 on our national debt.

But that doesn't mean we need to raise taxes to pay it. There are so many other undeserving, inefficient, wasteful programs that the money could be siphoned from. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still several pork-barrel programs operating under the federal government's radar (or perhaps with their blessing, you never know).

On this matter we differ, paying off the debt a this moment is not the best way to deal with our surpluses.

bah

Kinda off/on topic

Everyone should pay the same % of income tax.

Ghetto joe decided to smoke blunts 24/7 and now works in McDonalds and pays on a few % income tax. Where I got an education make good money and get hit up for %30+.

I do not agree with this at all!

quote:

Originally posted by Cro_Addict Kinda off/on topic Everyone should pay the same % of income tax. Ghetto joe decided to smoke blunts 24/7 and now works in McDonalds and pays on a few % income tax. Where I got an education make good money and get hit up for %30+. I do not agree with this at all!

thats because the hippies will tell you its not fair that he grew up in a bad neighbourhood and smoked pot while growing up.

fucking hippies

quote:

Originally posted by malek On this matter we differ, paying off the debt a this moment is not the best way to deal with our surpluses.

That is not exactly what I said. Obviously the interest on our national debt is not 100%, so paying off all or part of the debt gives less back to the taxpayers than a direct tax break would. That's assuming the government has some level of integrity and issues a tax break based on the interest reduction - if the government is less honest, then it might give nothing back at all.

A surplus means that people were overtaxed and that money should always be given back. I didn't say that the surplus should go toward debt repayment. The money for debt repayment should come from any of the many wasteful social programs that inflated the debt so much in the first place. You could argue that the money should still be cut, but used to reduce taxes instead, but (a) that's a far less palatable idea to most Canadians, and (b) if you follow that to its logical conclusion, you end up with a government that does absolutely nothing but collect money from taxpayers in order to pay debt interest. A giant financial black hole.

The only way to really solve that problem is to have the government actually generate real revenue in some way (by "real revenue" I mean the non-confiscatory type). LCBO does it, but that's provincial and probably a fluke. Easier just to privatize some federal services and keep a 51% controlling share. And let them compete on an open market, otherwise you just end up with a bloated and inefficient private monopoly.

quote:

Originally posted by Cro_Addict Everyone should pay the same % of income tax.

Technically, that's not really "fair" either. You're still getting penalized for making more money. The only truly fair income tax is no income tax, but the next best thing would be a flat tax.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT KEEP THE FUCKING 1% OF GST AND SPEND IT ON WORTHWHILE PROJECTS!!!

+1

quote:

Originally posted by malek Its easy to read a few sentences here and there, its much harder to connect the dots and put in context the findings of this study. The two worst govt (Alberta by a huge margin, Federal in raw numbers) went overboard because both had incredible amounts of money coming in! While the two best govt for being spot with their budgeting were Quebec and Newfoundland, two cash strapped provinces! Don't you find this weird?? The richest govt, went way overboard with spendings, while the ones that barely made the year had almost no overspendings... The more money you send to a govt, the more ways he'll find to waste it.

I read more than a few lines...and still feel that you may be reading more into the study than the stats support. You *may* be correct, but there is no evidence in that study to support what you claim that higher revenues = more mismanagement (i.e. inaccurate projection does not EQUAL mismanagement of funds).

To play devil's advocate, the gov't could be spending the money in a fairly efficient, beneficial manner and just not be forcasting costs and revenues very well. This is more typical of ANY big organization...gov't, big business, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by malek The way I see it, sure on our roughly 25k-30k$ or so of annual spendings on gaz, food and clothing, 250$ will stay in my pockets. If I was in the govt, I would have sent that 1% to the provinces for them to decide what to do with it! Some provinces need it, some others don't! 1% = 5 billions a year in Canada, thats a rough 1.2 Billion for Quebec, which would be well spent on roads/metro/bridges, etc. But if Harper has no balls for doing such a noble thing, and is in need of political cred (people like a govt who lower taxes), then so be it, I will gladly accept that money and will be happy about it. infrastructure > tax break > * > program spendings

there is no way in hell that most people spend $25-30k on gas, food and clothing...and the vast majority of grocery items are not GST taxable. I spent ~$68 at the grocery store last night on at least 25 items. Two were GST taxable. Check your next grocery bill.

regardless, I'm glad you agree this money could be better spent. 5 billion in spending or transfers will do more good for more people than a *few* bucks in each of our pockets. I guess I really am a "bleeding heart liberal" who prefers to see a better distribution of wealth, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Cro_Addict Kinda off/on topic Everyone should pay the same % of income tax. Ghetto joe decided to smoke blunts 24/7 and now works in McDonalds and pays on a few % income tax. Where I got an education make good money and get hit up for %30+. I do not agree with this at all!

this idiotic stereotype of a post barely deserves a reply...come on.

next time you're in McD's, check who's working there. I bet it's mostly students and minorities...not "ghetto joe" who smokes blunts

btw...learn about income tax calculation. EVERYONE pays the SAME % amount of tax at different thresholds. People earning more money pay a higher % on THAT PORTION of their income above certain thresholds. I'm amazed at how many people don't know that.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5...5000-s1-06e.txt

I enjoy your 2nd idiotic implication that most people in "crap" jobs are there because they're lazy too. #2

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Except that's really not fair at all - it's punishing people for developing more skills and working harder. Only bleeding-heart liberals consider people to be victims of circumstance with no direct control over their income. Having said that, I'm with you that he shouldn't be focusing so much on the GST. A GST cut forces people to spend their money in order to see any benefit, whereas an income tax cut would reward those with the discipline to save and invest their money. Unfortunately, income tax cuts are even less popular with the liberals, as they're perceived to "benefit the rich" even more than a GST cut (both untrue, it's the middle class that suffers the most under the current tax system). If you actually reason through it logically, it's easy to see why an income tax cut is better for the less affluent than a GST cut, but as a rule, we aren't dealing with a very logical body of voters. Mark: I'm not bitching about tuition costs or program cuts. The TTC and property taxes are both the city's responsibility, not the Federal government's, and if people had a problem with those, they shouldn't have re-elected Miller. As far as I'm concerned, the TTC is complete shit and should be sold off to a private company. ... The GST isn't "revenue". Harper is not "ditching" it by returning it to the people who did not pay it voluntarily. It's not the government's money, it's OUR money.

don't paint all liberals with that brush. I *do* prefer income tax cuts for several reasons. One, they immediately benefit people by keeping money in their pocket vs. tax credits when they file returns. Two, they can be tailored to better assist those who need it (by adjusting tax thresholds instead of a sweeping cut to all thresholds). Three, as I said before and you agree, they don't tie savings to spending (consumption) as a GST cut does (and again, only on non-rent/mortgage, non-grocery, non-tuition items).

I realize transit and property taxes are municipal items...but the feds and province need to contribute more to transit. TTC is woefully underfunded and the consequence is shittier and shittier service, fare hikes, and property tax hikes to pay for it. Miller can't be solely held responsible for that as the TTC has been in the shitter for much longer than his tenure.

Why is the GST not "revenue"? Do you then feel that income tax isn't "revenue" (since no one would voluntarily pay that tax either)? Do you voluntarily pay income tax? Isn't that "our money" too?

I find it a much harder pill to swallow when my hard-earned employment income is taxed vs my consumption/spending habits being taxed...don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT there is no way in hell that most people spend $25-30k on gas, food and clothing...and the vast majority of grocery items are not GST taxable. I spent ~$68 at the grocery store last night on at least 25 items. Two were GST taxable. Check your next grocery bill. regardless, I'm glad you agree this money could be better spent. 5 billion in spending or transfers will do more good for more people than a *few* bucks in each of our pockets. I guess I really am a "bleeding heart liberal" who prefers to see a better distribution of wealth, lol.

I don't know about other people, I was speaking for myself, my household (we're 2), here's the breakdown: 5000$ gaz, 1400$ condo fees, 960$ hydro, 3500$ groceries, 1080 cable/net, 1200+ cell bills, 4000$-6000$ eating out, ...

thats a rough 17000$ a year and I haven't touched an item of clothing, vacations/trips, house items, car maintenance, entertainement, etc etc. My 25k figure is very credible.

And about the govt not wasting, I've seen it first hand, i worked in a govt agency for 3 and half years. That was in the best rated govt in that study (Quebec) and I can tell you that I witnessed A LOT of it.

I have many friends who work at other places in the govt and its the same, there's no incentive for administrators to keep things under budget. If they use less of it, the next year they'll have less budget, which means less power. More budget = more power.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT To play devil's advocate, the gov't could be spending the money in a fairly efficient, beneficial manner and just not be forcasting costs and revenues very well. This is more typical of ANY big organization...gov't, big business, etc.

I'm surprised at you. It's possible - although highly improbable - but it's most definitely not typical of any large organization, especially a monopoly.

If an organization keeps any kind of a budget, forecasting should be very accurate. Don't forget that unlike an ordinary business, sales and other revenue does not factor into government programs, and that's the most difficult part for a business to forecast. When your operating budget is known and supposedly fixed from the beginning of the year, any overruns are extremely unlikely to be attributable to anything but mind-boggling inefficiency.

The suggestion that the government is running things efficiently in spite of massive forecasting errors defies all economic and business sense. If you were a private investor and saw a company spending 2-3 times its budget or more - or borrowing twice as much money for its operating budget as actually required (the private-sector equivalent of a "surplus"), you'd yank your funds out of there in a heartbeat. When this happens in any privately-owned business, it's always seen a sign that the business is horribly run; when it happens in a government, it's sadly par for the course.

But it's a moot point. It's well-known why the government can't forecast, and it's because they have no accountability for the money they spend. There's no incentive to keep to a budget; therefore, they don't. If they need more money, they can always just borrow it, or raise taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT btw...learn about income tax calculation. EVERYONE pays the SAME % amount of tax at different thresholds. People earning more money pay a higher % on THAT PORTION of their income above certain thresholds. I'm amazed at how many people don't know that.

Of course, with respect to what he's saying, it makes little difference. If a company offered you $50 per hour for the first 2 hours of an 8 hour day, and $5 per hour for the last 6 hours, you'd internally compute that as $16.25 per hour (unless you're a fool).

In the same vein, when people do their taxes at the end of the year, they think of how much money they're paying as a blended rate. People need to understand how the bracket system works so they don't start thinking that they'll have a higher net income on a $65K salary as opposed to an $80K salary, but when they see that paycheque, it hardly matters how the tax was calculated. Person A's paycheque is 35% tax, and Person B's paycheque is 40% tax.

Our tax system is not any more fair than one where the tax rate varies on the entire income. It just happens to be easier to administer with tiers, because there are no discontinuities in the absolute tax amounts. It would be pretty weird if you had $40K take-home pay at a $60K salary and $35K take-home pay at $70K.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I find it a much harder pill to swallow when my hard-earned employment income is taxed vs my consumption/spending habits being taxed...don't you?

I did mention specifically that an income tax cut is much better for everyone than a GST cut. So hallelujah, on this point we agree.

As for the TTC, though, it's not crap because it's underfunded, it's crap because it's run like crap. There's simply no justification for the budget they claim to need.

The real problem with the TTC and the city of Toronto is that when they drained all the money from road and highway extensions 30 years ago, they were supposed to spend it on transit infrastructure, but they didn't. No one today has any clue where that money actually went (although I can guess). So in light of that nonsense, nobody today is going to be inclined to just hand billions of dollars over to Toronto or the TTC without knowing exactly how it's intended to be spent AND proper oversight to ensure that it's actually spent that way.

And we've all seen what the City of Toronto and the TTC want to spend their money on. Destroying St. Clair to make more room for the streetcars. Destroying the Gardiner for some unspecified future waterfront stuff. LRVs that are really just more glorified streetcars and will wreck car traffic even more. If they can't even put together an impressive plan, why should anybody trust them with a bigger budget?

I'll tell you a great way the TTC can spend its money, and it wouldn't even cost them that much: parking lots. I know dozens of people who would love to take a subway downtown, but live just a little too far away to walk, and aren't willing to take the bus (who can blame them?). Give them free parking (with a TTC ticket purchase) at the subway station and they'll drive 2 km instead of 20 km. Everybody wins; the TTC gets more revenue, Joe Blow gets downtown faster and almost breaks even on the price when you factor in gas costs, and the environmentalists can rest easy knowing that these people have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 10. Oh, and we'll have more oil to export to the U.S., so we can make some extra cash there.

But Toronto/the TTC would never go for it. Why? Because they're not interested in the ROI when it comes to spending their budget. It's entirely agenda-run, and anything that might encourage people to drive, even for a short distance, is unacceptable.

The TTC as it is right now is a lost cause. If they're going to bankrupt themselves anyway, let them do it on a shoestring budget.

take ~$5k off your list...because condo fees and most groceries are not subject to GST

granting your 25k in spending, it equates to about ~$10/month savings for each of you. not much. and anyone who does that that's significant isn't spending enough to realize anything close to those savings.

what I'd like to see is an economic analysis of how a 1% GST cut is "better" for Canadians (individually or collectively) then the gov't having 5 billion to spend...that's about all that would convince me that the cut is truly the right thing to do right now.

I know the gov't is inefficient...as are any huge entities. I work in a mortgage division of one of the big 5 banks and see a ton of waste too.

I just don't think that there is significant enough waste to say that it's better to give a pittance back to each person vs. keeping it and spending it on programs, reducing the debt or giving it to provinces/cities.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT take ~$5k off your list...because condo fees and most groceries are not subject to GST

hahahaha absolutely wrong, if you look at the fees breakup of your condo fees, they are all taxable, from hydro to insurances, to services...

And as for groceries, you are wrong again, yes milk and unprocessed food are not taxeable, but these don't makeup for most of the bill, ... Most of peoples groceries are semi to processed food nowadays and those are fully taxeable.

quote:

Condominium fees charged to owners or lessees of residential condominium units are generally exempt, if the fees relate to the occupancy or use of a residential unit in the complex. Likewise, supplies of property or services are exempt if they are made after December 10, 1998, by a corporation (or syndicate in the case of transactions under the Civil Code) established upon the registration, under the laws of a province, of a condominium or strata lot plan or description or similar plan or description, to the owner or lessee of a residential condominium unit described by that plan or description, if the property or service relates to the occupancy or use of the unit. Similarly, co-operative housing corporation fees that relate to the use and occupancy of a residential unit by a shareholder or lessee of a shareholder of the corporation are exempt, if the fees relate to the occupancy or use of a residential unit in the complex. As a result, residential condominium corporations and cooperative housing corporations are treated much the same as residential landlords: they are generally unable to claim ITCs for GST/HST paid or payable on purchases related to property or services provided to condominium owners.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gm/19-2-2/19-2-2r-e.pdf


as for food...I guess that depends upon what you consider "food".

if your meals are chips, snacks, pop and shit like that...then, yeah, it's taxed. If it's meat, fruit, vegetables, milk, soup, etc...then no.


I really don't want to argue semantics here or nickel and dime over whether you will save $10 or $12 a month (cause that's the difference we're talking about here).

my overall point stands...the CPC is putting VERY little money back into the pockets of MOST people (and virtually all of us here on TA) and, IMHO, the money can be put to better use.

further, I'd suggest that tax cuts are better when they come in the form of income tax rate cuts or amendments to the income tax rate thresholds. leave consumption/spending related taxes alone.

a 1% GST tax cut sounds better on paper for the average person than the real savings it actually confers upon them.

happier with that?

Also off topic...

The polls are in for Poland's federal election...
the brothers are gone

(For those of you who don't follow eastern european politics - aka everyone lol - for the past 5 years, Polska has been run by two brother who are both just over 5 feet tall The Kaczynski brothers - one was president, one was prime minister - the most ridiculous phenomenon in Polish politics since the fall of communism)

Anyhow... our new president: Donald Tusk - Platform of the Citizens
"Jeszcze Polska nie zginela"
I love my country

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox Anyhow... our new president: Donald Tusk - Platform of the Citizens "Jeszcze Polska nie zginela" I love my country

Next Prime Minister, not President. One of the brothers will still be president for a while.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.