News   Sep 03, 2024
Transit and Skyscrapers Across the GTA Make Headlines in August, 2024
 224     0 
News   Sep 03, 2024
News Roundup for September 3, 2024
 380     0 
News   Sep 03, 2024
Frecce Tricolori
 382     1 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

narduch said:
If its anything like their other programs most people won't be eligible. But at least they can say they are doing something.
Click to expand...
That always annoys me when I file my income tax, that last section that lists the Ontario tax credits and their obscure programs, and none of them apply to me.
 
The logic is that deficits give rise to intergenerational equity issues. Of course governments borrow for capital spending, and provided the projects have some economic justification, few would question the wisdom of doing that. In the provincial accounts, the deficit doesn’t include capital expenditures, which is analogous to accounting for private corporations. However, the Wynne government’s proposal to run a deficit of around 1% of provincial GDP has nothing to do with building the roads, schools and hospitals you mention. To repeat - those spending items on useful hard assets used by youths and seniors alike aren’t part of deficit accounting.

This deficit is about current spending - new programs and increases to existing programs. Of course, the left did a neat trick years ago, when it defined every single government spending item as an investment. But that’s pretty meaningless, if not dishonest, and it’s hard to make a rational, non-partisan argument that the latest round of government expansion will lead to higher provincial GDP in the future. Hence, this is consumption, not investment. Which isn’t to say the new spending is a bad idea, though I think it is. The question is how to finance it. I’d argue that absent a severe and prolonged recession, it makes little sense for an economy as small and open ad Ontario’s to fund current consumption with debt. To do so is to pretend that nobody ever has to pay for anything. Of course, somebody does eventually pay: the bill for all this social justice will be borne by future generations of taxpayers. Were I a productively employed youth, I’d be unhappy at the notion that at some point in the future, either my taxes will rise or my government services will fall, as the bill for all this 2018 social justice comes due. As it happens, I’m an aging boomer, so selfishly I should want the government to blow out spending and debt over my few remaining years, and stick millennials with the bill. But I still think it stinks.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I get what you're saying, but I am leery of breaking the social contract and overtly start stratifying politics by generation because no one wins at the end of that process.

AoD
Click to expand...

Then don't pay for social programs with structural deficits. The only real defensible deficit over a full economic cycle is for infrastructure. Anything else should be paid for. If not in the year, the expense is incurred, then over the business cycle.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I get what you're saying, but I am leery of breaking the social contract and overtly start stratifying politics by generation because no one wins at the end of that process.

AoD
Click to expand...

I don't think the argument about inter-generational inequity is requisite.

As a supporter of more robust social programs, I also favour paying for them in real time, particularly when the economy is growing.

The choice to defer raising taxes is a problem.

First, because it means the need to raise them may end up arising during a recession, which would make matters worse.

Second, because, the unneeded accumulation of debt is also adding fiscal pressure. Every added 10B, right now, represents about 400M per year in additional interest payments.

If, as expected, interest rates rise, even a bit, say 1% in near to medium term; that fiscal pressure would add 3B to annual interest payments, before any growth in the debt.

Put another way, had taxes been raised to pay for ongoing spending a mere 5 years ago, debt today would about 25B less, and represent a savings of around 1B per year that could be spent on social programs.

It would also greatly reduce the risk of large tax hikes or service reductions in the event of another recession.

Never mind the burden on future generations, I don't want my new-found benefits rolled back; or to face a larger than otherwise needed tax hike, to pay both for them, and for servicing the debt.
 
kEiThZ said:
Then don't pay for social programs with structural deficits. The only real defensible deficit over a full economic cycle is for infrastructure. Anything else should be paid for. If not in the year, the expense is incurred, then over the business cycle.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that with non-capital spending - and same goes for tax cuts as well. Hell in fact I’d argue we should have a substantial estate tax.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
That always annoys me when I file my income tax, that last section that lists the Ontario tax credits and their obscure programs, and none of them apply to me.
Click to expand...
Welcome to my life. T4, total income, taxes paid, CPP and EI deducted, total, thanks for coming out. Oh, you owe another 600$....again...on top of the 12K already paid.

At this point I only apply for the Trillium Benefit/GST rebate in the hopes that something messes up and I get a dollar. It's like a shitty lottery for me: I'm less likely to win it than I am at the slots.

Meanwhile, I read stories about wealthy f*c*s who somehow managed to shrink their taxable income to half mine. I mean, yeah, they do maybe half the actual work that I do, but I'm sure their real income is a bit (a lot) more than mine.

No problem, I'll get the bill, that Rosedale house of yours must cost a fortune to upkeep! (Though, it doesn't cost enough to upkeep to raise my pay to be in line with yours, even though I'm paying the bills here).
 
Regarding the deficit: What's the PCs' plan here, really?

I don't mean the "efficiencies, trust me, I run a business, you don't know, I know" non-plan. I'm talking specifics.

All I hear is talk of cutting taxes with no specific policy ideas other than the elimination of income taxes for those earning under 30K p.a. and a hiring freeze for bureaucrats (or reduction through attrition)

If I'm in debt, cutting my revenue seems like a bad idea. By seems like, I mean to say is.

I myself am in debt. Shall I call the banks and let them know that I'm actually going to be working less hours just because and so would really appreciate if they could raise my credit limits as I'll need the money to pay for necessities like rent and food?

I understand they haven't released their platform yet, but has anyone heard any specific policy ideas from the PCs in regards to financial matters?
As it stands now, I don't trust them with my money (and yours). Reduce taxes, reduce deficit, "efficiencies". Doesn't sound like a plan to me. I need numbers and an explanation else you're just chatting breeze.
 
With Doug in charge, don't expect those specifics any time soon. He's a BUSINESS MAN, doncha know? He'll make it all better.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top