I'm looking for a tax-and-axe party...

[Machjo]

... any proposals? Which current Canadian party would you say comes closest to the tax-and-axe principle.

On the tax front, I'd focus ideally on a resource tax.

On the spending front, here would be a few places to start:

1. Require all who enter Canada to know at least one of Canada's official languages to a high level of fluence, and then gradually scrap the LINC and CLIC programs (Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program).

2. Assuming the contract is not yet signed, scrap the F-35 purchases for now.

3. Introduce prison labour so as to reduce the cost of prison maintenance, but make sure it's economically productive labour and not make-work jobs.

4. Redirect spending from all unnecessary endeavours towards vocational training for the unemployed. After all, the more people we have working and earning a decent salary, the more of a tax base we have.

 

[damngrumpy]

I wonder, do you mean you want large tax reductions and programs axed? I agree we have
to make sure we are operating programs that are of value, and we need to be prudent about
our taxation system. We also have to get it right, for years we and our neighbours to the
south, kept taxes low, while not keeping up with bridges and roads etc. Now the repairs are
required and there is no money to do them.
We need taxes and we need many but not all of the programs operated by government but
using a large box cutter sometimes means we cut the wrong things. For example many of
the middle management people were terminated from the government employee roles.
The problem later saw the upper management people were never trained to do the jobs that
were vacant. The new people never had the training required and the final result was that
all the people they let go were brought back on contract and the services ran six or more
weeks behind in getting the job done.
Sometimes they do this through buyouts and then they have to get many to come back and do
the work.

I want a responsible approach to this. reductions in some programs may be required but we
have to be careful in how and what is done.

 

[Machjo]

I wonder, do you mean you want large tax reductions and programs axed?

No. Tax-and-axe is just what the name says. You either:

1. Raise taxes without raising spending,
2. Cut spending without reducing taxes, or
3. Raise taxes and reduce spending.

Though i suppose reducing taxes a little but making deep spending cuts, or alternatively raising spending a little but raising taxes much could count as tax-and-axe too. The main principle in tax-and-axe though is that tax revenue must always exceed spending.

I wonder, do you mean you want large tax reductions and programs axed? I agree we have
to make sure we are operating programs that are of value, and we need to be prudent about
our taxation system. We also have to get it right, for years we and our neighbours to the
south, kept taxes low, while not keeping up with bridges and roads etc. Now the repairs are
required and there is no money to do them.
We need taxes and we need many but not all of the programs operated by government but
using a large box cutter sometimes means we cut the wrong things. For example many of
the middle management people were terminated from the government employee roles.
The problem later saw the upper management people were never trained to do the jobs that
were vacant. The new people never had the training required and the final result was that
all the people they let go were brought back on contract and the services ran six or more
weeks behind in getting the job done.
Sometimes they do this through buyouts and then they have to get many to come back and do
the work.

I want a responsible approach to this. reductions in some programs may be required but we
have to be careful in how and what is done.

This I fully agree with. Across the board cuts are not wise. That said, the government should always be diligent about analyzing where we can make work more efficient.

That said, a government that lacks the courage to admit it's failed to cut spending and so raise taxes to at least maintain a balanced budget is only going to make matters worse down the road. Sure we need to cut spending. But failing that, we need to raise taxes.

Now that I think about it, I think this is one reason I always vote for losing candidates. If a candidate is quick to promise spending cuts or tax increases, but is loath to support tax cuts or spending increases, that's my kind of politician. But as you can understand, not all voters go for that kind of politician.

 

[damngrumpy]

I never got your full post for some reason earlier, having trouble with this thing today
for some reason. Yes tax revenue must exceed the spending, unless there is a
major disaster that would require an alternative.
Governments don't have the guts to raise taxes at the time of instituting a new program.
The problem here is the real cost of the proposed program outstrips the ability to pay
over time. IE the pension plan and medicare neither of these programs reflected the
true cost of the program in the beginning and in the end the program is in serious trouble
and will have to be paid for in future dollars.
If programs are funded properly in the first place they are cheaper in the long run because
the upfront cost and the surplus creates interest in real time dollars. Having a program
start in 1980 for example and being paid for in 2010 dollars is hugely expensive as the back
load is money plus the inflation cost over time.
We need to buy those jets for example. We do? If we don't really need them they are a hell
of a waste of money. If we have to replace our existing fleet of fighters, that is another matter.
If we were to wait even longer and we need them we would pay for all the repairs for outdated
and worn out equipment plus we are going to pay more for jets later.
A surface look and judgement is not enough all the facts have to be known and weighed
in making a decision.

 

[Machjo]

I never got your full post for some reason earlier, having trouble with this thing today
for some reason. Yes tax revenue must exceed the spending, unless there is a
major disaster that would require an alternative.
Governments don't have the guts to raise taxes at the time of instituting a new program.
The problem here is the real cost of the proposed program outstrips the ability to pay
over time. IE the pension plan and medicare neither of these programs reflected the
true cost of the program in the beginning and in the end the program is in serious trouble
and will have to be paid for in future dollars.
If programs are funded properly in the first place they are cheaper in the long run because
the upfront cost and the surplus creates interest in real time dollars. Having a program
start in 1980 for example and being paid for in 2010 dollars is hugely expensive as the back
load is money plus the inflation cost over time.
We need to buy those jets for example. We do? If we don't really need them they are a hell
of a waste of money. If we have to replace our existing fleet of fighters, that is another matter.
If we were to wait even longer and we need them we would pay for all the repairs for outdated
and worn out equipment plus we are going to pay more for jets later.
A surface look and judgement is not enough all the facts have to be known and weighed
in making a decision.

Well, if we really need those fighters, then let's raise taxes first to balance the budget and pay off the debt so that we can get them sooner rather than later. As long as taxes are too low, that's not possible.

It seems no one wants to support our troops. We'd rather let lenders support them at interest.

Hey, that would make a good bumper sticker:

Don't tax me to support our troops; let lenders support them instead.

 

[damngrumpy]

As a matter of fact I think we do need the planes as looking for parts is costly as well
and there is the human safety factor. Even Albania has a few fighter jets, and we of
course should support our forces. If we ask them to go somewhere and deal with a
situation they need to have the equipment to do the job. Of course the standing joke
is the best sub we have for the Navy is in the West Edmonton Mall go figure.
You and I agree with the principle you are talking about, The problem is such a view
requires politicians to think ahead and that won't happen anytime soon.

 

[Machjo]

As a matter of fact I think we do need the planes as looking for parts is costly as well
and there is the human safety factor. Even Albania has a few fighter jets, and we of
course should support our forces. If we ask them to go somewhere and deal with a
situation they need to have the equipment to do the job. Of course the standing joke
is the best sub we have for the Navy is in the West Edmonton Mall go figure.
You and I agree with the principle you are talking about, The problem is such a view
requires politicians to think ahead and that won't happen anytime soon.

Now when you say "we should support our troops", I take it you mean "we the taxpayers" and not "we the lenders" I hope. If so, then yes I agree.

The problem though is that that does not make for a good campaign if a politician wants to win an election.