I understand that Layton has gotten {thank god} Martin to spend on some priority area. $4.6 bill if I have my figures right.
So far, thou, I have heard nothing but generalitites. This is especially true with the cities. All I've heard is money for the enviornment and that is suppose to include transit but I'm not sure.
Has anyone heard anything a bit more specific

$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.

I just assumed it was for construction costs of the giant ungreased and splintered pole they were going to stick up Canada's ass.

Man...did they get off lucky. It's not like spending a little more on housing, education, the environment and public transit is a bad thing for anybody.

Sometimes I think we should have more minority governments...seems to do more, for more people, in a shorter period of time, than majority governments. Getting political parties to work closer together on issues aren't the worse thing in the world either.




KGB

^^^^^^^^^^
I agree but I would rather have a minority where they can get a majority vote with just one other party instead of the juggernaut we are in. The Bloc will support very few government motions unless they have to do more with social policy...ie same-sex marriage.

BTW, thanks STEELTOWN for the info.........where did you find it??

$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.

THAT is friggin awesome.

I just assumed it was for construction costs of the giant ungreased and splintered pole they were going to stick up Canada's ass.

Damn you are hilarious!





Evil NDP and Liberals! The Liberals compromising values to stay in power and the NDP and their "lets tax more and take money away from those evil corporations that employ people and bring in piles of money" :no:.

I think that Paul Martin's minority government has done more for Canada in the few months it's been in power than Jean Chrieten has done in a decade.

$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition

Being a post secondary student I'm happy about this. My student debt is nuts. So bad I don't even bother to look at my debt statement lol.

I got the info from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114601860388_38/?hub=Canada Look near the bottom of the page to see the changes made to the budget.

The $500 million for foreign aid will bring Canada in line with the promise of 0.7 per cent of GDP. That will make Bono happy to hear.

Unfortunately, even if the Libreals, NDP and Carollyn Parish vote together, the budget will still be defeated. There is not even the possibility of a tie, in which case the Speaker could make the budget pass. Martin still needs support from the Bloc. Will he make it? I certainly hope so, because these NDP initiatives are nothing short of spectacular, particularly the funds for affordable housing.

I just assumed it was for construction costs of the giant ungreased and splintered pole they were going to stick up Canada's ass.


Gold Jerry, GOLD!!

$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.

Not only is this a great way to spend the money, but it shows that NDP plays political opportunism smartly -- they can, at the very least, maintain their seat count, but almost certainly improve it by a healthy margin in case of an election, but they also know that:

a) this budget suits them fine
b) people don't want an election

Bloc looks pretty bad right now claiming that they will probably vote against the budget as it is not good for Quebec -- but as it should be evident from their platform, the budget should be good for Quebec by their standards.

Conservatives look about the same as they have in the past while.

http://www.mackaycartoons.com/2005-04-25.jpg

I actually have one probem with all of this. We are assuming that throwing more money at affordable housing is good. Maybe whats needed is more efficent use of the money they now get. Perfect example is the cost of a project here in Edmonton. Average cost per unit was 165,000. However new condo's towers in much better neighbourhoods were selling units that are larger better overall finish etc with the average at around 145,000. The value of the units that were built would only fetch 100,00 on the market. Could we not have just bought the units we needed that way instead of building them and saved money in the process and had them available for the poor in a faster timeframe. Heck what I would have done is give a rebate to the landlord and thus partially pay off part of thier rents. We would know the money went to the rents and thus the money would not be used for other uses. Thus we are not messing with the market, have people choose where they would live and not create areas with poor housing thus worse neighbourhoods in the long run. Just something to consider. Its all well and good to toss more money at it and hope it goes away, but if we are already tossing our money around and not using it effectively we have done very little and wasted tones of money in the process.

I personally would have liked all the money to go to debt repayment and then spend the intrest savings. The reason, the largest expense for the Federal government is still debt servicing and the highest debt per capita out of any government in Canada (well besides the Newfoundland provincial government) is the Federal government. We should not spend what we don't have but what we have. Just a thought what would happen if say we needed to start raising intrest rates again. We would be up the creek again. We are still not out of our fiscal mess and need much more to go to get it right. By the way anyone mention that we have the best situation of the G7 so we have it fine think again. All the G7 countries are doing a shitty job with fiscal management, and right now we are in a not as shitty a situation as the rest. But not in a good standing. I look at the $36 billion we spend annually on debt servicing and see what we could have done with that money. Say half goes to tax cuts and the other half to spending inititives. Think what could be done if we had an additional 18 billion a year to spend on priority areas and we cut every tax across the board by 10%.

Now I also hear about how a debt is like a mortgage and no sence paying off your mortgage if your roof is leaking. Well lets treat it like a mortgage and have a timetable to pay it off in 25 years. Basically lets increase our current payments from 39 billion in this budget (36 for debt servicing and 3 for the ecomonic prudence that goes to debt repayment) to 43.6 billion a year. Assuming we maintain the same intrest rates for the next 25 years, we would have paid off our debt with the money going to these spending inititives. Thus position us to actually be able to foster economic growth while funding anything we want at that point. By the way as the exonomy grows we would then have the money for either the tax cuts or spending proiorities as needed. This 4.6 billion may not sound like much to our 495 billion debt. But that money over 25 years along with the power of compunding intrest will save us a bundle.

Oh and in case any of you are wondering I have voted Liberal federally in every election I have been allowed to vote in (granted my MP David Kilgour is now an independant).

Would have preferred less social spending, except for public transit, and more corporate tax cuts.

Or give the $4.6 billion back to the provinces from which it came. I just don't get so giddy on $4.6 billion on social spending, that if the liberals get total descretion on how they will spend it, will just get spent in areas to boost their own future election hopes.

Minority governments are great. Feels like real democracy in action.

Minority governments are great. Feels like real democracy in action.

I think it's silly though that a new election can be called whenever by any of the parties involved in the coalition government. Yeah, it's democracy in action until one party does not like what's going on and democracy suddenly halts.

I wonder if it would be better to have fixed elections, that way it forces the parties to work with one another whether they like it or not.

Instead of directly funding social housing, why not instead give tax breaks to companies who are willing to incorporate social housing into their residential developments? Or encourage NGOs (habitat for humanity, etc.) to build instead & offer grants to them....or possibly even free land.

Instead of directly funding social housing, why not instead give tax breaks to companies who are willing to incorporate social housing into their residential developments? Or encourage NGOs (habitat for humanity, etc.) to build instead & offer grants to them....or possibly even free land.

I hate government owned social housing. I prefer the Office of Dwelling Subisdization-approach. :)

Gotta agree with rt's approach too. Awhile back in Tampa, the company I worked for worked out an agreement with the local government to build free housing for the city in exchange for higher densities on the condominium development.

It was a win-win-win situation.

I hate government owned social housing. I prefer the Office of Dwelling Subisdization-approach. :)

Exactly. The government isn't necessarily an expert on constructing quality buildings, so why not give it to professionals who specialize in this field?

BTW, wouldn't that 4.6 billion be more effective via tax cuts ... especially to the lower-middle class? Corporation taxes need to go down too.. else we'll fall behind the US and Ireland. That's the cost for living beside a anti-tax superpower. :D

Also, instead of funding environmental programs, why not shift the tax base from income to consumption so that wasteful consumers are penalized... this for one would have a profound effect on how Canadians spend their hard earned cash, & change the practises of businesses..

The only thing I could justify is post-secondary funding.. but I believe tuition still needs to rise a bit, for the extra cash is needed for Universities to stay competitive in the International scene.

I'd get bitched at if I stated my position here on Canada's tax rate, so I'll just keep quiet on this one.

But the extra taxes Canadians pay equal a higher quality of life, right? Right? ;)

Okay... I'll add this. I just think the government should prioritize how it spends its money. Something like a zero-based budget every 10 years or so in order to justify spending, and have the concept of ignoring sunk costs strictly enforced in order to get the best use of public funds. For example, universities are ultra-important and should receive more funding.However is rasing taxes to give them more funds the best option when the government already collects a large amount of your paycheck? What I believe to be a better option is to find programs not as important as education, cut them, then divert the funds to education instead.

Of course there will always be people who disagree and believe Canada should tax those evil corporations and the rich in order to subsidize lower income people, provinces, and other things. That's fine. Nothing is intended to change how the government works or influence other people, simply my opinion on the matter. Time will prove which opinion was right.

I think we should built 6 Burj Dubai's with the money, they are only 800 million a pop, each of our 6 largest cities could get one and we could use them for public housing if needed :)

But the extra taxes Canadians pay equal a higher quality of life, right? Right? ;) .

Higher taxes in Canada?? I am begining to doubt that. I get taxed 40+% in salary in 50% in bonuses in NYC. Tax rates are definatley lower in Canada than NYC.

Yeah, NYC is a special case. I assume people don't mind the taxes in NYC simply because it is indeed a urban paradise.

However the point I made is that overall Canadian taxes are higher than American.

NYC is one extreme where Alaska, with its no income taxes, would be the other extreme. Residents actually get money from the gvernment every year due to surpulus and no debt to payoff.

Yeah, but not too many people work in Alaska eh? LOL

There are seven states without personal income tax.

Alberta should be the first province without it if it isn't so spending friendly.:)

Yeah, but not too many people work in Alaska eh? LOL

I'm not too sure what you mean by that but yeah, it's an extreme. Just like NYC.

On a side note, I hope to be moving up there this time next year. You never know what the future holds, but I was looking at Columbia for my grad program.

This is good but I would have expected a little more in terms of public transit. Having said that though, what we sorely need in this country is some money for infrastructure renewal. I can't see why the feds don't offer up some cash. Even enough to maintain what we have would be a nice step. As it stands the highways are crumbling. Anybody who has driven on Canada's highways and the Interstates in the US can attest to the fact that they are definitely a better way to go. Why we don't have the same in Canada is a mystery IMO.

As far as taxes go, I'd say that Canadians pay more directly. However, when you factor in the user-pay system of American healthcare it usually turns out that it costs more to live in the States. Certainly Canada's healthcare system takes up a big chunk of those taxes up here but the numbers also consistently show that it is a less expensive system.

On the other hand, it would be nice if we could get through a visit to the emergency ward without the demoralizing effect the cobweb draped skeletons in the waiting room with you can induce. That would definitely be a plus.

Certainly Canada's healthcare system takes up a big chunk of those taxes up here but the numbers also consistently show that it is a less expensive system.

This is true but isn't it a well known fact that Canada's system is underfunded? In order to keep it cheaper, it's being rationed. This is why it takes awhile to see a doctor or get an operation. However, having said this, America has far more problems in its healthcare system.

In the end, it depends on the state, if your employer offers decent medical insurance, and so on.

In the end, it depends on the state, if your employer offers decent medical insurance, and so on.

Isn't that a ridiculous burden to the employer though? :D

This is true but isn't it a well known fact that Canada's system is underfunded? In order to keep it cheaper, it's being rationed. This is why it takes awhile to see a doctor or get an operation. However, having said this, America has far more problems in its healthcare system.

In the end, it depends on the state, if your employer offers decent medical insurance, and so on.
It's debatable whether our system is underfunded or not. I have a pretty good source (my brother in law is a doctor) who is of the opinion that money isn't the problem (at this time anyway) It's basically grossly inefficient. Certainly we could use more in the way of medical infrastructure and new machines as technology makes them available but the major financial problems have more to do with mismanagement at this point. In fact, I'm all for raising the wages of medical personnel. Even before my sister married the doctor (lol) I was of this opinion. For one thing, it's well known that medical graduates can make far more money down south not to mention perks and signing bonuses. Offer them more money and they won't be so inclined to leave. But I have another reason for this which is a little less direct but still IMO is a case in point of the government mismanagement of Canadian taxes.

In a nutshell, we always seem to find ourselves subsidizing many things that otherwise should not be subsidized. For instance, if a hockey team is in financial difficulty, we'll offer them a couple dozen million bucks to stay afloat. What are we really paying for? Well, player's salaries of course. So, if one pro hockey player makes a million bucks a year, we could have paid for what, ten doctors? Maybe more maybe less, but you get the idea. I'm not picking on hockey or pro sports in particular, I'm simply saying that if a student has to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars and spend five years to become a doctor, isn't he or she worth more than a pro hockey player? Yeah, it's a little out in left field but it serves as an example of the kind of mismanagement I'm referring to. We subsidize private businesses but won't pay for public institutions? Just seems like we need to get our priorities in order here. Or, the government does anyway.

It's debatable whether our system is underfunded or not. I have a pretty good source (my brother in law is a doctor) who is of the opinion that money isn't the problem (at this time anyway) It's basically grossly inefficient.

Inefficientcy is to be expected from the public sector. This is why the privtate sector can compete with one another and the public sector even though they must make a profit.

Efficientcy in the public sector is similar to a monopoly in this sense. This is why conservative-minded people like to contract work out. Although contracting work out comes with its pitfalls too.

In a nutshell, we always seem to find ourselves subsidizing many things that otherwise should not be subsidized. For instance, if a hockey team is in financial difficulty, we'll offer them a couple dozen million bucks to stay afloat. What are we really paying for? Well, player's salaries of course. So, if one pro hockey player makes a million bucks a year, we could have paid for what, ten doctors? Maybe more maybe less, but you get the idea.

This has been the central theme in all my ecomomic posts, the government should be prioritizing spending instead of subsidizing or paying for things we don't really need. I fully, fully agree with your post, and It's a shame that some Canadians cannot see this.

:cheers: :cheers1:

There are seven states without personal income tax.

Alberta should be the first province without it if it isn't so spending friendly.:)

But these states levy other taxes (sales, corporate, property, even tourist taxes in florida). However, the bulk of the expensive government services in the USA are provided by the feds, whereas here they're provided by the provinces. On top of that, municipalities can usually levy income and sales taxes, and some don't even have property taxes because of that.

I'd like to see more power to cities in canada. In ontario, I wish they'd make all communities levy a property tax based on square footage of land used and a 2% sales tax that goes directly to the municipality (rural or urban). This means that people who live in townhouses or condos pay less property taxes, encouraging efficient use of land. They could exempt farms, but raise the property tax for parts of land that are not used for an actual building, to encourage people to build parking lots upwards instead of outwards.

I'd like to see more power to cities in canada. In ontario, I wish they'd make all communities levy a property tax based on square footage of land used and a 2% sales tax that goes directly to the municipality (rural or urban). This means that people who live in townhouses or condos pay less property taxes, encouraging efficient use of land. They could exempt farms, but raise the property tax for parts of land that are not used for an actual building, to encourage people to build parking lots upwards instead of outwards.
You know, at first blush that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. I'm curious though about things like the definition of "used" land. I mean, would a patio apply or a deck? Or a swimming pool? That sort of thing. Garages and what not. But the only other thing that I feel is important to mention is that if we're going to go that route (and like I say, from what I see, it seems like a pretty good idea) then are we going to scrap the current property tax systems ? If not I'm not so sure anybody would go for it. As in, if I'm already paying property taxes, why should I pay more on them for land this doesn't have something built on it? If it's a dual system whereby you pay different rates based on your land usage, then it sounds alright although it would require a far greater amount of maintenance and scrutiny (thereby costing more overall than it MAY be worth) but if it's just an additional tax to deal with, I for one would not be in favour of it (and I suspect that any property owners would reject overwhelmingly as well)

But these states levy other taxes (sales, corporate, property, even tourist taxes in florida). However, the bulk of the expensive government services in the USA are provided by the feds, whereas here they're provided by the provinces. On top of that, municipalities can usually levy income and sales taxes, and some don't even have property taxes because of that.

I'd like to see more power to cities in canada. In ontario, I wish they'd make all communities levy a property tax based on square footage of land used and a 2% sales tax that goes directly to the municipality (rural or urban). This means that people who live in townhouses or condos pay less property taxes, encouraging efficient use of land. They could exempt farms, but raise the property tax for parts of land that are not used for an actual building, to encourage people to build parking lots upwards instead of outwards.

These are excellent alternatives to the income tax. Consumption based taxation is the perfect way to encourage substainability and maintain steady streams of gvoernment revenue. Honestly, would the tourists really mind paying a couple dollars of tourist tax, lol. :)