If spending must increase, onwhat should it increase, and on what not?

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
What are your ideas on this? If spending must increase, where would you want the money to go?

In my mind, here are some areas where I think the govt should NOT spend:

The auto industry (enough cars and congestion on the road already!)
The banking system (any increase in spending, be it direct or indirect, will benefit the banks either way, so why dirct spending on banks that will benefit the banks only?)
The military (why not promote more alliances and military cooperation rather than promote wasteful redundancies in the system by having each nation spend individually. Too redundant. Why not share forces as much as possible.)

Official bilingualism (considering that Statscan statistics from 2006 show that the vast majority fo Canadians on both sides of the language divide failed to learn their second official language in spite of billions in provincial and federal government funding and compulsory second-language classes throughout the land, it's time to face the facts and accept that English and French are just too difficult for most Canadians as second languages).

Infrastructure for personal gas-powered vehicles (e.g. roads and highways) (too many roads already)

Where I would support spending:

Education (it's the backbone of democracy after all. Do we really want ignorant voters at the polls?)

Research into second-language acquisition policies (as the world shrinks, international communication will become increasingly expensive, yet with statistics showing that few in Canada succeed in learning their second language well, we need to research more efficient ways to increase the rate of bilingualism but at reasonable cost)

Resource-friendly infrastructure if necessary (e.g. bicycle paths connecting residential areas to business centres, etc.)

Your thoughts? What should we be increasing spending on, and what not?
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
Water treatment facilities...most of our cities need these but can't afford them. Roads,too,because most of all our goods travel from one city to the others by trucks..also,bridges, tunnels, etc. need repairing and upgrading.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Water treatment facilities...most of our cities need these but can't afford them. Roads,too,because most of all our goods travel from one city to the others by trucks..also,bridges, tunnels, etc. need repairing and upgrading.

Are you willing to accept property tax increases to repair the aforesaid?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
What are your ideas on this? If spending must increase, where would you want the money to go?

In my mind, here are some areas where I think the govt should NOT spend:

The auto industry (enough cars and congestion on the road already!)
The banking system (any increase in spending, be it direct or indirect, will benefit the banks either way, so why dirct spending on banks that will benefit the banks only?)
The military (why not promote more alliances and military cooperation rather than promote wasteful redundancies in the system by having each nation spend individually. Too redundant. Why not share forces as much as possible.)


Official bilingualism (considering that Statscan statistics from 2006 show that the vast majority fo Canadians on both sides of the language divide failed to learn their second official language in spite of billions in provincial and federal government funding and compulsory second-language classes throughout the land, it's time to face the facts and accept that English and French are just too difficult for most Canadians as second languages).

Infrastructure for personal gas-powered vehicles (e.g. roads and highways) (too many roads already)

Where I would support spending:

Education (it's the backbone of democracy after all. Do we really want ignorant voters at the polls?)

Research into second-language acquisition policies (as the world shrinks, international communication will become increasingly expensive, yet with statistics showing that few in Canada succeed in learning their second language well, we need to research more efficient ways to increase the rate of bilingualism but at reasonable cost)

Resource-friendly infrastructure if necessary (e.g. bicycle paths connecting residential areas to business centres, etc.)

Your thoughts? What should we be increasing spending on, and what not?

Number one would have to be paying down the debt, the absolute last thing would be bailing out failed businesses (better to give a tax break to people or a cash rebate to people who stimulate the economy by spending on such things as new "green" vehicles or "green" home construction/renovations).
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
They're going up ,especially the water rates as our systems are hopelessly out of date. in fact, much of our crap flows directly into our harbour.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
As for taxes, I tend to believe in a mixture of user pay, proportional and progressive taxes, but I tend to lean more in favour of user pay.

Why not have the government sell petrol on crown land at higher cost to companies. This would drive the cost of petrol up, and that would promote wiser use fo a limited resource. Same with any natural non-renewable resource on crown land. The govt has a responsibility not to sell it off at bargain prices.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
As for taxes, I tend to believe in a mixture of user pay, proportional and progressive taxes, but I tend to lean more in favour of user pay.

Why not have the government sell petrol on crown land at higher cost to companies. This would drive the cost of petrol up, and that would promote wiser use fo a limited resource. Same with any natural non-renewable resource on crown land. The govt has a responsibility not to sell it off at bargain prices.

Do you have a buffer full of fluff as well?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.

No....?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I believe the following ought to take priority before any consideration of increased spending:

0 interest rates for the bank of Canada
0 inflation
0 debt

Increased spending ought to be a last resort. And if it must go up, then it must be done wisely.

I agree with 2 out of 3- not bad- but with zero inflation the Unions would be screaming.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I agree with 2 out of 3- not bad- but with zero inflation the Unions would be screaming.

Let 'em scream. It's in their best interest anyway. What's the point of giving them a raise that will be worth nothing a year later?

Would it not be the same as no raise but the same value for money down the road? Then educate the Unions. That's why we need to increase spending on educaiton. If unions can't even see their own best interest in this, that's sad. What does that say of education in Canada?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Legislate unions out of existence.

I could agree with that (after all, cooperation between labour and management is much more efficient than conflict). On the other hand, to ensure that management can't abuse this advantage, we'd have to introduce some kind of system giving labour some kind of voting and running rights in a company to compensate.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
I could agree with that (after all, cooperation between labour and management is much more efficient than conflict). On the other hand, to ensure that management can't abuse this advantage, we'd have to introduce some kind of system giving labour some kind of voting and running rights in a company to compensate.

So` what is the answer to that `
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Let 'em scream. It's in their best interest anyway. What's the point of giving them a raise that will be worth nothing a year later?

Would it not be the same as no raise but the same value for money down the road? Then educate the Unions. That's why we need to increase spending on educaiton. If unions can't even see their own best interest in this, that's sad. What does that say of education in Canada?

My sentiments exactly.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So` what is the answer to that `

I don't know exactly, but I'll give it a try. I suppose we have no right to criticize unless we present an alternative, however crude it might be, so here goes:

This is just a brainstorm for now, and maybe someone else has a better idea, but what about this:

Labour and owners (or shareholders) get to vote for a committee of let's say at least nine members. They all get a blank ballot on which they're to write nine names of any owner (or shareholder) of worker in the company. The nine names that appear most frequently form the committee for one year, and this committe would make the decisions by either a simple majority or at least five votes, whichever is the greater number. Of course the owners would hold the puse strings however and would be free to invest in or take investments out of the company at will. Clearly when workers are irrisponsible, they might find investment dwindling quickly. And when they do well, investors would invest more. So this would still provide checks and balances.

This could also work with the government. When public service employees are irresponsible, the govt could just take the money out of those offices and put it elsewhere. So yes, the workers would be given power over non-financial decisions, but when they go too far, money can still be withdrawn.

This I think would be a nice balance.
 

rd1331

New Member
Nov 29, 2008
40
0
6
You cannot have 0 Inflation, the economy would collapse. Although sounds good but would be horrible for Canada. The reason is this. If Canada had 0 inflation and the rest of the world had say the average of 3% then every year the Canadian dollar would be worth less and less money. Which would ruin the economy and in the end cause an inflation rate higher than 3% so that prices and the value of our currency would catchup to the rest of the world. Sounds great but wouldn't work. Debt, for sure lets get it to 0, probability, a long long time, but you have to have a goal.

Also 0 Interest rates for the Bank of Canada wouldn't work economically aswell. Although again the idea is great it wouldn't work in a Capatalist sociaty and I don't want to go down the non-democratic route that it would work under.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Legislate unions out of existence.

Okay....

while you are at it, why don't you legislate religious meetings, political parties, professional associations, and special interest groups out of existence....

Ever hear of the right to assemble, the right of association?

Your solution is very popular in your average fascist state.....

My God, you people don't even have a clue how much of your wealth and freedom you owe to unions......and with the centralization of capital, the growing power of corporations, the stagnation of real-wealth growth of all but the most rich, the increasing gap in wealth.....unions are even more significant and necessary.

You'd cut your own throat.

I've been a union man all my life, I have no understanding of anti-union hatred.

Yes, sometimes they get carried away.......I'd be the first to admit that.

But we are a much better society with unions than without unions.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
You cannot have 0 Inflation, the economy would collapse. Although sounds good but would be horrible for Canada. The reason is this. If Canada had 0 inflation and the rest of the world had say the average of 3% then every year the Canadian dollar would be worth less and less money. Which would ruin the economy and in the end cause an inflation rate higher than 3% so that prices and the value of our currency would catchup to the rest of the world. Sounds great but wouldn't work. Debt, for sure lets get it to 0, probability, a long long time, but you have to have a goal.

Also 0 Interest rates for the Bank of Canada wouldn't work economically aswell. Although again the idea is great it wouldn't work in a Capatalist sociaty and I don't want to go down the non-democratic route that it would work under.
...and you just said what?