I am all for people choosing to vote based on how they think the money should be spent. It’s those who never want to pay taxes that annoy me.
I just love people who oppose taxes -- what do they think pays for the hospitals, health care in general, the roads, transit, the schools and so on?
Like it or not, it's because people don't perceive benefit from government spending.
And I can sort of sympathize with that. This government (and particularly under Wynne) has prioritized social programs over everything else. And more importantly, it has prioritized initiatives that specifically benefit lower income voters, while explicitly asking upper and middle income classes to fund those programs. So why are those higher earning voters going to vote for the Liberals? You'd argue that it's no loss to lose some wealthy voters. I'd argue they are losing most of the GTA.
Take for example the Student Opportunity grants. It's a great example to illustrate the above. Let's use this presentation:
http://careercollegesontario.ca/Data/files/Conference 2017/OSAP Presentation - Presented by Travis Coulter of the MAESD _compressed.pdf
Parental income under $50 000, basically gets a free degree. Great for those families. But for example, take the reaction of my normally very progressive spouse when I told her about this, "The government is not helping any recent graduates saddled with debt, while now effectively devaluing their degree." A family over $86000 per year has to start contribution. No biggie right? It's not much...but from $90 000 to $110 000 the amount that parents are expected to contribute quadruples.
This means the average GTA family is contributing substantially to their kids' tuition. Meanwhile, they face crushing home prices and the skyrocketing property taxes in the 905 (poor development choices...but that's a different discussion). There's no sympathy for these families, because, hey, they are "rich" in the eyes of others. Meanwhile, they have no idea why their bank account is so light every month and they are living paycheque to paycheque. This is one example, but there's a lot of programs that don't do much for GTA voters.
And this is why I argue the Liberals should have done much more for infrastructure. That's a spending area where everyone benefits and the the benefits are mostly tangible for the average voter. Or, engineer social programs differently, so that more people benefit. Instead, of giving large grants for university degree to low-income students, how about working towards making community college free for everyone? We'd get more job skills in effect, and the same aid could have been disbursed among many more students.
I am all for people choosing to vote based on how they think the money should be spent. It’s those who never want to pay taxes that annoy me.
Targeted programs, means-tested program (other than income support for the poor), have the effect of making others who foot the bill feel excluded and wonder they are paying.
Simply, I think this really speaks to the value of simple, clear, universal programs that have no income tests.
The program is paid for (ideally) by progressive taxes that hit high(er) earners hard(er).
But in services it reads as close to identical as possible.
Targeted programs, means-tested program (other than income support for the poor), have the effect of making others who foot the bill feel excluded and wonder they are paying.
To add to that, most targeted programs are more expensive to operate, as they involve evaluations, forms, additional layers of staff. Want to remove economic barriers to University? I'm all with you, how about we just abolish or substantially lower tuition, and then ditch all the scholarships, grants, bursaries and loans? The additional cost is negligible, the savings substantial, its transparent, easy to understand, no extra forms to fill out, and everyone gets something out of it.
I fully support taxes, but to a point. With income taxes, government payroll deductions, and consumption taxes, plus the corporate taxes included in prices before we pay the latter (people forget that corporate taxes are just personal incomes taxes applied to a corporation’s shareholders and customers), I’d estimate middle class Ontarians pay well over 50% of their incomes to the government. But again, if it’s well spent, Ontarians would likely roll over and take it.I just love people who oppose taxes -- what do they think pays for the hospitals, health care in general, the roads, transit, the schools and so on?
But taxes, in this case the Ontario portion are not being well spent, and so we resent increased levies.Libs have already increased taxes and have engaged in a lot of questionable spending.
Whether that is true or not but people dont like higher taxes if they dont trust the person on top.
Parental income should have nothing to do with tuition levels, unless the parents are legally compelled to pay. Back in the early 1990s my dad was making tons of cash, owned his company, but didn’t contribute a dime towards my university. And that’s fine, I made it through university no worries, but when applying for OSAP my dad’s income was taken into account, meaning any potential benefit was reduced.Parental income under $50 000, basically gets a free degree. Great for those families. But for example, take the reaction of my normally very progressive spouse when I told her about this, "The government is not helping any recent graduates saddled with debt, while now effectively devaluing their degree." A family over $86000 per year has to start contribution. No biggie right? It's not much...but from $90 000 to $110 000 the amount that parents are expected to contribute quadruples.
This means the average GTA family is contributing substantially to their kids' tuition.
Parental income should have nothing to do with tuition levels, unless the parents are legally compelled to pay. Back in the early 1990s my dad was making tons of cash, owned his company, but didn’t contribute a dime towards my university. And that’s fine, I made it through university no worries, but when applying for OSAP my dad’s income was taken into account, meaning any potential benefit was reduced.
I suppose this could be fixed, or maybe it is already, by including an affidavit or declaration on the forms that parents are not helping. Otherwise, parental income shouldn’t be a factor.
I started university at 20, so hardly a child. At 20 my dad already had one kid and a wife, at 20 my grandfathers were officers in combat during WW2. As much as we like to infantize young adults, at 20 I did not expect my parents to give me tuition, but osap loans were appreciated.This comes as a result of case law on child support, as I understand it.
Any lawyer here may correct me.
I found an example from Quebec, where the law is similar to my understanding.
https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/child-support-adult-child-still-school
But the real culprit is how the GTA has been milked by Ontario and Canada:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...t-for-confederation-in-ontario/article743713/
We're sending tens of billions to Ottawa and Queen's Park. Average voters may not entirely understand the mechanics of it all. But they know when they perceive a lack of value for money. And given how much the GTA sends out, I don't think it's out of the question, that many GTA voters feel they aren't getting a good deal.
Sometimes clarity is an asset, even when the clarity is utter nonsense.