Ottawa to pay out surplus cash

[EnviroTO]

According to an article in the Toronto Star from the Canadian Press the federal government is planning that one-third of all unexpected surpluses will go to debt relief, one-third to program spending and one-third to taxpayers.

I guess I missed the Federal Government's press release stating "Everything is Fixed and We No Longer Need Your Money". What a joke that they would give a third of the unexpected surplus back. What a mixed message it is by gougeing us on taxes every time we fly out of Toronto airport but giving us money back as if they don't need it. Everything is fixed now... it is the Liberal secret... the military has been secretly re-equipped, the passenger rail network has caught up with Europe and Japan, polluted old minesites have all been cleaned up, Downsview Park is done, Canada Square is done, the Native land claims have all been settled, the national highway network is in tip top shape through northern Ontario, and the healthcare system is in perfect condition. It's amazing, the Liberals have secretly fixed everything and now they will be giving us our money back. Way to go Paul Martin, you're a miracle worker.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Paul certainly is quite the guy. I guess Kyoto has been fixed too? And what about education? I guess he has helped fix that too. Hats off too Paul!

As soon as I can get a hand on this legislation Im going to go through it. Im really curious as too who is going to be the beneficiary of the surplus paybacks. Having watched enough American media to see the nonsense that takes place with tax cuts Im really cycical about this. If it goes to those who need it most, the lower wage earners of society to help them make ends meet, then fine, I can deal with that. But if this is the same kind of 'trickle down' tax cuts for the rich that the conservatives in the States love so much than I think its time for this government too fall.

 

[TOinSF]

The plan is a scam and any competent oppostion could win an election over it.

What they're saying is, "We don't need all that money we take from you each year, but we're going to continue to take it. You know, just in case we need to fund some pork-barrel projects to boost our popularity at the end of the year. (Like we've done for the last decade). And, what's more, we'll make sure we keep a little bit around to give back to you. Enough for a couple of 2-4's! We're such great money managers! We just hope you don't realize that you're giving us an interest free loan each year!"

Of the taxes Canadians pay, there is a massive over allocation to the Federal government. This allows the Liberals to spend freely, mismanage, play games in areas of provincial and municipal jurisdiction, and now, give direct hand-outs to everyone. The best start at a solution is to simply cut federal taxes.

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

any competent oppostion could win an election over it

In Canada, you say? :lol

 

[afransen TO]

It's irresponsible to be giving surplus funds back in the form of rebates when we have pressing infrastructure needs.

1/3 each debt reduction, spending, and tax relief really means about 1/2 debt reduction when you factor in the contingency reserve. Honestly, $3 billion per year in debt repayment is sufficient to say that Canada is serious of fiscal prudence. It is more important to provide money for initiatives that will ensure our future prosperity.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Who cares about a crushing debt and crumbling infrastructure as long as I've got a $116 cheque in my hands! Trickle down theory: the cheques will go towards the LCBO or horse races at Woodbine so several dollars of gambling profits and liquor taxes will trickle down to the provincial government.

I think I'm gonna vote for the Green Party...I refuse to vote for the NDP and there's no way I'm giving Harper a second chance.

 

[spmarshall]

I have little use for rapid debt repayment when infrastructure is falling apart or worthy of a third world country (ahem, passenger rail), but that has more merit than rebates.

We need another parliament with the NDP holding the balance of power - otherwise we'd be getting more corporate tax cuts and even less money for infrastructure and cities. I can't quite get why people "refuse to vote for the NDP". Was it Bob Rae? He's been disowned by the Dippers. The NDP usually have better environmental platforms than the Greens anyway.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I don't favour using all the money on debt repayment or even infrastructure, I just approve of these options more than simply giving the money back to taxpayers in the form of tiny cheques that will mean almost nothing to even the poorest families while costing the government billions. Chances are good that the money will not be wisely spent by poor families - if they could spend money wisely, maybe of them would not be poor. Or maybe the money will be used to bribe votes out of the "struggling middle class" who couldn't possibly afford not to get $500 back in their pockets so that they can escape to Cuba again this year.

If it was a $1000 cheque, though, maybe I'd reconsider.

"Was it Bob Rae?"

No, I was only 8 when he took office. Actually, I'd vote for the Bloc if I lived in Quebec.

 

[afransen TO]

I prefer the Green approach to environmentalism: use market mechanisms to encourage people to do the environmentally appropriate thing. Subsidies, education and bans are ineffective in comparison.

Besides, imagine a society where you aren't taxed on income or capital gains, but rather how you consume. If you really want to, you should be able to have your little McMansion on an acre plot in the burbs. But you should have to pay so dearly for it you'll wonder why you'd even bother... Besides, removing/reducing taxation from income and investment would encourage a healthy economy while providing strong incentive to choose environmentally conscious practices.

Frankly, I find the NDP a dissatisfying choice. They seem to be caught up in Big Labour politics and they are overly fond of using subsidies to influence behaviour. Sticks seem to work better than carrots.

 

[bizorky]

^While I agree with you that the balance of taxation should be re-examined with repsect to consumption, I would prefer that some of this surplus be invested in renewable energy, green energy, transit infrastructure and education (among other things). This type of surplus is not guaranteed to last forever; the opportunity to invest properly for the future is now. A hundred bucks and change is not going to help me or anyone else when transit is over-stuffed, education is unaffordable or when we have been cornered into buying expensive electricity because we could not figure out how to invest in our own infrastructure.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I prefer the Green approach to environmentalism: use market mechanisms to encourage people to do the environmentally appropriate thing. Subsidies, education and bans are ineffective in comparison.

I think that a balance of both is the most effective way of dealing with the issue. The biggest problem with assuming that market mechanisms will solve the problem is that market mechanisms, by there nature, work against the environment. If the market were structured so that environmental destruction were a cost that was factored in and not externalized than this would work quite well. But in our current market structure there arent any incentives for companies to go green.

In terms of education and other more socialist approaches, they are not likely to solve all the problems. But they are still really important. Unless society as a whole has an awarness and understanding of environmental issues and various policies and laws that affect them, and unless these are part of normal discourse, then green companies wont even be able to succeed. Knowledge plays a huge factor in being able to allow people to either adopt their own more socialist strategies to the problem (ie urban living, reducing car use, co-ops, etc) or if they want become part of a business community and pursue options that way.

Besides, imagine a society where you aren't taxed on income or capital gains, but rather how you consume. If you really want to, you should be able to have your little McMansion on an acre plot in the burbs. But you should have to pay so dearly for it you'll wonder why you'd even bother... Besides, removing/reducing taxation from income and investment would encourage a healthy economy while providing strong incentive to choose environmentally conscious practices.

Again though, this is largely how the United States functions and this is hardly succeeding, in terms of creating more sustainable societies. If you want a big McMansion, its going to cost you, and the larger, more cosmopolitan and economically strong city its located in, the more its going to cost. Yet it only helps to contribute to a growing disparity where a small minority can afford it and flaunt leaving the rest of the population salivating for what they have and struggling to achieve it. Again maybe if the market was structured in such a way that all the external costs were internalized so that a Hummer would be fairly priced, then the idea could work. But this is almost entirely unlikely to happen given some crazy 360 in North American economics.

I would prefer that some of this surplus be invested in renewable energy, green energy, transit infrastructure and education (among other things). This type of surplus is not guaranteed to last forever; the opportunity to invest properly for the future is now. A hundred bucks and change is not going to help me or anyone else when transit is over-stuffed, education is unaffordable or when we have been cornered into buying expensive electricity because we could not figure out how to invest in our own infrastructure.

Luckily one third of the surplus is going towards these kinds of projects, but I do agree that handing back money hardly seems like a logical solution at this time. I think there needs to be a really deep re-examination of just what taxing and funding responsibilities the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal governments have. The Feds have these great surpluses, but the other levels, spare a few exceptions, are starved. I dont agree we should go into decefit spending and slowly paying down the debt is a very wise thing to do for the overall health of the country. But I would agree that a lot of these surpluses need to either be eliminated by equalizing taxation and returning revenue generation to the lower levels of government, or put back into investing in important infrastructure, education, and cultural needs.

 

[afransen TO]

"But in our current market structure there arent any incentives for companies to go green."

No disagreement here... well, except I would say there are few incentives. Fines are essentially a market mechanism (a tax on a certain undesirable activity), for instance.


If you try to rely on guilt to get people to change there behaviour, you'll be waiting a long time. If you want people to change their behaviour, the most effective way to do so is through their pocketbooks. Make it expensive to do environmentally inappropriate things, and then people will change their behaviour. All the education for environmentalism since the 70s has had only limited impact.

"Again though, this is largely how the United States functions and this is hardly succeeding, in terms of creating more sustainable societies."

No, I totally disagree. If anything, the US is deliberately subsidizing inapprorpriate economic activity.... If you think a system similar to that of the US is what I propose, you didn't understand my meaning.

"but the other levels, spare a few exceptions, are starved."

They (the province) have the capacity to adequately fund themselves. For the sake of political expediency they choose not to. It's much easier to do nothing and whine about the Federal government. Government as a % of GDP has shrunk significantly since the early 90s. And a lot of that was provinces slashing their taxes. In many ways they are reaping what they sowed. Ontario alone has roughly $35 billion in additional debt as a result of tax cuts brought on by Harris.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

If you try to rely on guilt to get people to change there behaviour, you'll be waiting a long time. If you want people to change their behaviour, the most effective way to do so is through their pocketbooks. Make it expensive to do environmentally inappropriate things, and then people will change their behaviour. All the education for environmentalism since the 70s has had only limited impact.

I can for the most part agree that many people are going to respond to these issues only once it affects their bank account (see: rising gas prices). And while there does need to be some way to price according to full cost, this can be rather contentious as well. Its fine to say to someone that you will pay more because you live in a 2200 square foot house in Newmarket and commute 100km each day and shop at Wal-Mart and engage in generally excessive consumer habits. But if you dont provide a viable alternative, then it becomes unfair. And while there are plenty of condos going up in the city and housing options are better, I would hardly call the balance between urban and suburban living one where by it gives most the choice for cheaper sustainable living or suburban living.

In regards to education, I understand where you are coming from. And yes, the push towards educating people about environmental issues is one that sometimes seems like it is has had no effect. On the other hand, if you look at the global picture, if you look at those people who do understand environmental issues and have clued in, the results are really quite impressive. The Kyoto Accord may just be a treaty, but that the global community has made this very real attempt to combat global warming is very encouraging. European countries are certainly demonstrating numerous ways for industrial society to become greener. And even in Canada, where yes, you still suburban growth and people in huge SUV's and what seem like discouraging signs, there is still a modest sized minority, and growing, who get it.

And this brings me to the biggest reason why education is so important, and its the obvious one, look who we live next too. And if you see the unbelievably regressive environmental policies that the current regime is enacting, what we need right now is to ensure that education is continued, and even strengthened to ensure that a lot of the corporate propoghanda that is fueling the belief that everything is ok, can actually be countered instead of people simply being brainwashed into believing the nonsense.

No, I totally disagree. If anything, the US is deliberately subsidizing inapprorpriate economic activity.... If you think a system similar to that of the US is what I propose, you didn't understand my meaning.

Your right, and why I forgot about that is beyond me (maybe a little too wired on coffee that day).

They (the province) have the capacity to adequately fund themselves. For the sake of political expediency they choose not to. It's much easier to do nothing and whine about the Federal government. Government as a % of GDP has shrunk significantly since the early 90s. And a lot of that was provinces slashing their taxes. In many ways they are reaping what they sowed. Ontario alone has roughly $35 billion in additional debt as a result of tax cuts brought on by Harris.

In terms of the Ontario Government and their own fiscal situation, Ill leave that alone because I dont want to write for hours one end today, but simply, yes, they can do a lot more than they do.