A proposal for government fiscal honesty.

[Machjo]

I'd like your opinions on this. Let's say we introduced the following law to force government to be honest with the public as to the real costs of government:

1. Spending on the part of each level of government must restricted to within its budget within one year of the passing of this law.

2. The federal government would be prohibited from creating any new money as long as either the Bank of Canada rate is above 0% and the national inflation rate is not below 0%.

3. No level of government would be allowed to either reduce taxes or increase spending as long as it carries any debt, the Bank of Canada rate is above 0%, and the rate of inflation within its jurisdiction is not below 0%.

The way I see it, such a law woud force any socialist government to raise taxes before it could even consider spending increases, and would force any conservative government to reduce spending before it could even consider any tax reductions. In both cases, it would force the governemnt to be honest with the public about the real costs of its decisions.

What would be your thoughts on such a proposal?

 

[AnnaG]

How about "Smarten up or you're fired".
The bit about raising taxes before spending increase would just modify people like BC's Dippers to drive people and businesses out of the province first and then spend like crazy. As it sits, they tend to spend and then realize that they should increase taxes later.

 

[lone wolf]

There will always be unforeseen expenditures. The one thing bureaucracy lacks is accountability.

 

[Machjo]

How about "Smarten up or you're fired".

But do you trust the voters? Think about it. Both Reagan and Trudea were very popular leaders. Both gave everyone whatever they wanted for free, and just put the costs on the national credit card, and that won them alot of votes. I don't trust voters on this, and that's why I think such a lw would be helpful.

The bit about raising taxes before spending increase would just modify people like BC's Dippers to drive people and businesses out of the province first and then spend like crazy.

If they drive businesses out of the province, then they'd have no money to spend, forcing them to rethink their strategy. And that could be a good thing. Let's say they do try to raise taxes and see revenur drop. then they'd have to reverse that. But at least they'd know before they spend what the consequences of their actions are, thus allowing for some damage control.

As it sits, they tend to spend and then realize that they should increase taxes later.

Sounds like Harper.

 

[YukonJack]

Fiscal honesty in government.

Isn't that the biggest OXYMORON?

 

[Machjo]

There will always be unforeseen expenditures. The one thing bureaucracy lacks is accountability.

Of course there will always be unforeseen expenditures. And that's why we should have a high-tax-low spend (I'll chriten it HTLS) policy in good times so that we can pay off the debt in good times and then be on terra firma in bad times too.

Right now, we enjoy our good times too much and then pay the price in bad times, like when the recession struck and the previous government's surplus had already been spent away.

 

[Machjo]

Fiscal honesty in government.

Isn't that the biggest OXYMORON?

:lol:

Well, I suppose it was worth a shot?

 

[AnnaG]

But do you trust the voters? Think about it. Both Reagan and Trudea were very popular leaders. Both gave everyone whatever they wanted for free, and just put the costs on the national credit card, and that won them alot of votes. I don't trust voters on this, and that's why I think such a lw would be helpful.

That is what experts are for, right? You get auditors to craft something and then they give it to policy makers and away you go.

If they drive businesses out of the province, then they'd have no money to spend, forcing them to rethink their strategy. And that could be a good thing. Let's say they do try to raise taxes and see revenur drop. then they'd have to reverse that. But at least they'd know before they spend what the consequences of their actions are, thus allowing for some damage control.

But it didn't work with our Dippers, they just spent and spent, raised taxes till people and businesses started leaving, and the cherry on top of their mess was their sneaky, shady shenanigans. Dippers don't seem to catch onto the fiscal responsibility idea. And it wouldn't make much difference anyway, within a few months, BC's provincial debt was doubled the last time. the two times before that it took them longer to double the debt. It was the first time in BC's history that we had a bad credit rating.

Sounds like Harper.

I don't think Harpy's a crook like our last Dippers, ChRETIeN, and Martin were.

 

[lone wolf]

...or Multory

 

[AnnaG]

...or Multory

That one, too, and more if you keep going back farther.

 

[AnnaG]

I doubt our problems with politicians will never be over until we take back the power from them. Something closer to direct democracy would be nice, like Switzerland's governing style. So they can ONLY do what we let them do.
Anything less than that is simply inviting political scams, duds, and bad government.

 

[lone wolf]

That one, too, and more if you keep going back farther.

Yeah, eh? ;-) Great gig if we could get it....

 

[VanIsle]

Of course there will always be unforeseen expenditures. And that's why we should have a high-tax-low spend (I'll chriten it HTLS) policy in good times so that we can pay off the debt in good times and then be on terra firma in bad times too.

Right now, we enjoy our good times too much and then pay the price in bad times, like when the recession struck and the previous government's surplus had already been spent away.

Yeah but some of those "unforeseen" expenses should not include a pay raise for them and it often does. Right before they announce a raise in taxes.(Federally and Provincially)
Some people in BC are all excited because the cost of housing is on the rise again. What happens when the Olympics are over and all the people the BC Gov't is planning on moving here, stay in their place of origin before the Olympics? I've never understood why people think that their city in their province is the only place on earth and everyone must want to live there. BC government will be so broke and our taxes will have to be so high that no one will want to come. Then Gordon Campbell can step down and blame it on someone else!!!
Accountability? Is anyone accountable for much of anything these days let alone government?

 

[taxslave]

Yeah but some of those "unforeseen" expenses should not include a pay raise for them and it often does. Right before they announce a raise in taxes.(Federally and Provincially)
Some people in BC are all excited because the cost of housing is on the rise again. What happens when the Olympics are over and all the people the BC Gov't is planning on moving here, stay in their place of origin before the Olympics? I've never understood why people think that their city in their province is the only place on earth and everyone must want to live there. BC government will be so broke and our taxes will have to be so high that no one will want to come. Then Gordon Campbell can step down and blame it on someone else!!!
Accountability? Is anyone accountable for much of anything these days let alone government?

The fact is though that B.C. and especially lower mainland and lower end of the island have traditionally been desirable places to retire. This is unlikely to change until high house prices and low wages force all the businesses and young workers elsewhere.
I would like to see a law against deficit budgeting that can't be repealed on a whim. We pay far too much in taxes to too many levels of government and little is spent wisely. Governments must learn to life within their means just like the rest of us and not borrow just to buy votes.

 

[Machjo]

The fact is though that B.C. and especially lower mainland and lower end of the island have traditionally been desirable places to retire. This is unlikely to change until high house prices and low wages force all the businesses and young workers elsewhere.
I would like to see a law against deficit budgeting that can't be repealed on a whim. We pay far too much in taxes to too many levels of government and little is spent wisely. Governments must learn to life within their means just like the rest of us and not borrow just to buy votes.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly here. You seem to approve of the proposal in the OP, but for the reasons that it would force government to spend less and because we pay too much in taxes already.

Now while I agree that the proposal in the OP would likely cause an overall reduction in government spending, it would likely result in an overall tax increase too. So it would seem to me if your issue is high taxes, you ought to oppose the proposal in the OP, not support it.

However, the good news is the proposal in the OP would also mean lower interest rates on debts and a more stable dollar whose value would remain intact for years.

It is a trade off I suppose, higher taxes for a more stable dollar.