Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

[TOareaFan]

Without touching healthcare.

A stunning number, when you consider there are only about 93,000 civil servants in government, and another 42,000 in government agencies (like Metrolinx). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt62d-eng.htm

Presumably you have to completely eliminate operations with a lot of employees, like GO Transit from the provincial books.

There are over 1.1 million people in the broader public sector (take this table and don't count the federal employees pic.twitter.com/evVk7MwMPS )....100,000 is about a 10% cut overall....yes there are areas not being touched so some other areas will see more than the 10% to compensate. He has said none of the cuts will come from nurses, doctors or police......but has definitely said there will be less teachers in the province (increasing target class sizes by 2 or 3 students eliminates a lot of jobs and re-working {not eliminating, which is a surprise} all day kindergarten does also.

What we don't know (at least I don't) is how many of the 1.1 million employees reach retirement age each year....so how many of the 100k positions can be dealt with by just not filling the jobs and reallocating/reassigning people and how many are actual layoffs.

While there is a lot of headlining going on about "timmie harris" or "mikey hudak" and these cuts we should all keep in mind this is what he thinks needs to happen to balance the budget by 2016/2017 fiscal year from its current $11B deficit position.

What we should be doing is asking "Katie McGuinty" or "Dalton Wynne" what her plan is to , as she says in her budget bring the proposed $12.5B deficit into balance in 2017/2018 (ie one fiscal year later) because that is not clear.

It is fine to say that Hudak's plan would "decimate" Ontario (as she did this morning) but I have a hard time understanding why eliminating a $11B deficit in two years is "disastrous" for Ontario but eliminating a $12.5B deficit in 3 years is a "prudent plan"....part of that, I am sure, is because the budget didn't actually say how we get balanced...it just says we will.

 

[Adjei]

*Timmike Harrisdak

And all this while pledging, when asked what specific taxes he would raise if premier (incidentally at a press conference at the site of some new sprawling subdivision in Vaughan), that the answer was none.

It's ridiculous.

He's Ford without the crack and alcoholism, still useless.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

There are over 1.1 million people in the broader public sector (take this table and don't count the federal employees pic.twitter.com/evVk7MwMPS )....100,000 is about a 10% cut overall....yes there are areas not being touched so some other areas will see more than the 10% to compensate. He has said none of the cuts will come from nurses, doctors or police......but has definitely said there will be less teachers in the province (increasing target class sizes by 2 or 3 students eliminates a lot of jobs and re-working {not eliminating, which is a surprise} all day kindergarten does also.

What we don't know (at least I don't) is how many of the 1.1 million employees reach retirement age each year....so how many of the 100k positions can be dealt with by just not filling the jobs and reallocating/reassigning people and how many are actual layoffs.

While there is a lot of headlining going on about "timmie harris" or "mikey hudak" and these cuts we should all keep in mind this is what he thinks needs to happen to balance the budget by 2016/2017 fiscal year from its current $11B deficit position.

What we should be doing is asking "Katie McGuinty" or "Dalton Wynne" what her plan is to , as she says in her budget bring the proposed $12.5B deficit into balance in 2017/2018 (ie one fiscal year later) because that is not clear.

It is fine to say that Hudak's plan would "decimate" Ontario (as she did this morning) but I have a hard time understanding why eliminating a $11B deficit in two years is "disastrous" for Ontario but eliminating a $12.5B deficit in 3 years is a "prudent plan"....part of that, I am sure, is because the budget didn't actually say how we get balanced...it just says we will.

Balancing the budget is balancing the budget; I don't believe that anyone believes that the time frame for balancing it is what will be disastrous about a Hudak government. What will be disastrous is how the respective parties plan to do it.

Wynne needs to be clearer on the details of her plan, that much is completely true. But I'll take a vaguer plan for balancing the budget in three years over a clear plan for balancing it in two when the latter involves making the province an awful place to live and work.

 

[TOareaFan]

Balancing the budget is balancing the budget; I don't believe that anyone believes that the time frame for balancing it is what will be disastrous about a Hudak government. What will be disastrous is how the respective parties plan to do it.

Wynne needs to be clearer on the details of her plan, that much is completely true. But I'll take a vaguer plan for balancing the budget in three years over a clear plan for balancing it in two when the latter involves making the province an awful place to live and work.

My point is, that these sort of cuts are coming and, I suspect, the reason the methodology of the balancing is not clear in the Ontario Liberal Plan is that they also know they are coming....in fact, cutting from $12.5B is going to need broader/deeper cuts than cutting from $11B (while there is one fiscal year gap between the two balance dates, the Liberal one starts a year later)....so what I want to hear from the Liberals is how that budget gets balanced...as it sits now I have to accept that they will have similar or worse news after the election and just don't want to tell us now.

 

[doady]

Mike Hudak is going to eliminate 100,000 civil servants, there's your subways everywhere! Now he'll have to create 1.1 million jobs. Good luck with that.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...s_he_would_lay_off_100000_civil_servants.html

Not 100,000 jobs lost, just 100,000 jobs shifted to the private sector. For example, if the education system was privatized, teachers would still be teachers, just in private schools instead of public schools. Given the efficiency of private sector, they might actually be able to hire even more teachers.

 

[Adjei]

Not 100,000 jobs lost, just 100,000 jobs shifted to the private sector. For example, if the education system was privatized, teachers would still be teachers, just in private schools instead of public schools. Given the efficiency of private sector, they might actually be able to hire even more teachers.

Since he's creating 1,000,000 new jobs and if those 100,000 get eliminated, they have no problems, they will have new jobs waiting for them.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, I wonder how much the income tax rate reduction during the Harris period would actually translate in terms of government funding. Perhaps it's time to raise it again.

AoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Not 100,000 jobs lost, just 100,000 jobs shifted to the private sector. For example, if the education system was privatized, teachers would still be teachers, just in private schools instead of public schools. Given the efficiency of private sector, they might actually be able to hire even more teachers.

The government does not create jobs.

 

[TOareaFan]

Well, I wonder how much the income tax rate reduction during the Harris period would actually translate in terms of government funding. Perhaps it's time to raise it again.

AoD

I think income tax hikes are going to be necessary to reign in the deficit....in fact I am pretty sure about it.

My circle of friends includes mostly people who will be affected by the recent budget's tax increase on people earning over $150k.....since the budget I have not heard one person say they are opposed to the notion of the tax increase....what I hear over and over again is (grouping paraphrase) "I don't mind paying more if it is going to reduce the deficit.....but to pay more and then see the deficit increase by over $1B is just a slap in the face."....it feeds into the "tax and spend" moniker that the Ontario Liberal party tries to shake off.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think income tax hikes are going to be necessary to reign in the deficit....in fact I am pretty sure about it.

My circle of friends includes mostly people who will be affected by the recent budget's tax increase on people earning over $150k.....since the budget I have not heard one person say they are opposed to the notion of the tax increase....what I hear over and over again is (grouping paraphrase) "I don't mind paying more if it is going to reduce the deficit.....but to pay more and then see the deficit increase by over $1B is just a slap in the face."....it feeds into the "tax and spend" moniker that the Ontario Liberal party tries to shake off.

And yet, the PC is promising tax reductions. I think we as a province need some maturity in dealing with this issue instead of stupid promises from all around.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I want to know how much of this is to fund tax cuts. And how much of it is to balance the books.

Also, while we might take umbrage with the deep cuts Hudak is proposing, I don't see why we should be any less concerned by the fact that the Liberals either don't seem to have a sincere plan in place to balance the books or don't want to share that plan with the public. We shold also be very concerned with they way public debt has ballooned in this province. Our fiscal situation is a mess. And that's a mess that will undoubtedly severly impact the future of this province. After this year, the province will have over $300 billion in debt with a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 38%. By the time the books are balanced, we are looking at $320-330 billion in debt and quite likely 40% in debt-to-GDP.

Forget subways or LRTs, if the books don't get balanced, the province may not have money to keep the lights on.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think income tax hikes are going to be necessary to reign in the deficit....in fact I am pretty sure about it.

My circle of friends includes mostly people who will be affected by the recent budget's tax increase on people earning over $150k.....since the budget I have not heard one person say they are opposed to the notion of the tax increase....what I hear over and over again is (grouping paraphrase) "I don't mind paying more if it is going to reduce the deficit.....but to pay more and then see the deficit increase by over $1B is just a slap in the face."....it feeds into the "tax and spend" moniker that the Ontario Liberal party tries to shake off.

I make six figures. And while I don't mind paying more, I do take issue with this new trend of applying taxes almost exclusively to upper income earners. There's something to be said for progressivity. But exclusively targeting upper middle class is quite simply offensive, when the programs being paid for largely benefits the bulk of the population that earns less.

If the deficit is a common concern, then why are the lower earners not even seeing symbolic increases? For me, it started with McGuinty and the Health Premium. A health tax that was not specifically earmarked for health care (and went into general revenue) and was applied regressively. All so they could avoid the offence of simply raising income taxes slightly?

The only thing that has kept me voting for this government has been the incompetence of the Opposition. But policies like these really test my patience.

 

[doady]

Ontario should probably increase PST/HST. The Feds screwed over Ontario with the equalization payments, so it makes sense to reverse the Feds' 2% GST cut.

 

[Eug]

This is my left/right rating from a link I believe at The Star.

I took the poll a couple of times - yesterday - and I was usually slightly PC or else equally PC and Liberal.

I'm thinking this your stereotypical Globe and Mail reader: socially somewhat small-l liberal and fiscally somewhat small-c conservative.

The problem here for the centre left and centre right is that the Liberals have shifted quite left. That makes a lot of the centrists (including myself) uncomfortable. I'm historically not a PC supporter but I can imagine a lot of people who sit near me in the political spectrum were looking toward the PCs, and I think the polls generally supports that.

However today's slash-100000 announcement has pushed the PCs further to the right, making some of the centre (including myself) even more uncomfortable.

IMO Hudak's best play here would have been to stand pat or move slightly more toward the centre and he could have won the election. I think this move will hurt his chances. I'm curious what the polls after today will show.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Agreed - raise income tax for all brackets, raise GST by 2%, selective cuts and wage freeze. Keep the corporate tax rate where it is.

AoD