Federal money-saving ideas.


Machjo
#1
Here I'm starting a list of ways the Federal Government could save money. Not all of them would be easy to implement. Some would save only a few dollars (but hey, every red cent counts), etc.

I don't care how crazy your idea is, but please, let's put up a list that could save the government some money. So far I've got the following, but am looking for other ideas to add to it:


Question regarding fiscal policy

Dear candidates,

I would like to know whether you would support any of the following cost-saving measures, even if you must withdraw from your party and stand as an independent MP to do so:

1. End all Federal Government funding for political parties.
2. End the long-gun registry.
3. Abandon plans to purchase the F35s.
4. End all Federal Government subsidies to non-renewable resource industries.
5. Make the Constitutional changes required to reform Official Bilingualism along more efficient lines.
6. Make the Constitutional changes required to eliminate the separate school system.
7. Eliminate all Federal Government subsidies to all non-renewable-resources industries.
8. Prohibit all Federal Government funding for French and English language teaching abroad.
9. Propose a reduction in the number of official languages at the UN so as to reduce its translation and interpretation costs.
10. Shift to a more user-pay taxation system, such as a resource-based tax of some kind, such as a gas tax.
I believe the last point above would be effective in encouraging more responsible use of government resources such as roads and highways so as to reduce government costs in the expansion and maintenance of such infrastructure, by linking taxation more directly to personal choices.
I would also like to know if you can propose other cost-saving measures of your own.
 
Unforgiven
+1
#2
No more Bozos?
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#3
Close down Insite. (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Close down Insite. (external - login to view)

Legalize recreational drugs.
 
Machjo
+1
#5
Prohibit federal funding for alcohol.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
+4
#6  Top Rated Post
Eliminate foreign aid, try fixing our own country before others.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Legalize recreational drugs.

What falls under that category? That could include pot, ecstasy, acid, mushrooms. Hell, cocaine is used as a recreational drug.

How about drugs that aren't "processed"?

Marijuana and mushrooms.
 
Unforgiven
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Close down Insite. (external - login to view)

Shutting down all health care would save some money too.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Close down Insite. (external - login to view)

That's $500,000/y the feds contribute to this. Hardly a bank buster.
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Eliminate foreign aid, try fixing our own country before others.

I can agree to this to an extent, as long as rerecognize that sometimes we need to work with other countries even for our own benefit.

Restrict Canadian military engagements abroad to UN-led operations only.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I can agree to this to an extent, as long as rerecognize that sometimes we need to work with other countries even for our own benefit.

Some countries do deserve aid, but I think we need to be more targeted with it instead of spreading it thin.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Restrict Canadian military engagements abroad to UN-led operations only.

The UN is hardly a beacon of justice and righteousness in that regard, we'd still be at the mercy of the security council and their motives.
 
Machjo
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Close down Insite. (external - login to view)

I honestly don't know much about Insite, but from what I'd read on your link, it seems like it might be an OK idea. But granting Insite a legal exemption is different from funding it outright. So I suppose we could continue granting the exemption but cut funding I suppose, while granting it charity status.

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

That's $500,000/y the feds contribute to this. Hardly a bank buster.

$500,000 here, $500,000 there quickly adds up.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post



$500,000 here, $500,000 there quickly adds up.

Well, if insite prevents a couple hundred episodes of hepatitis, hiv infections per year, I would say it's well worth it.
 
Machjo
#14
[QUOTE=DurkaDurka;1402650]Some countries do deserve aid, but I think we need to be more targeted with it instead of spreading it thin.[quote]

At least limit ourselves to that aid we're agreed to as per international agreements. From what I understand, we'd committed to 1% of GDP. More than reasonable.



Quote:

The UN is hardly a beacon of justice and righteousness in that regard, we'd still be at the mercy of the security council and their motives.

The security council can only veto military action; the General Assembly, requiring a majority of votes, can authorize it. And remember Canada would still have the final word. But clearly our own government is not responsible enough to handle money responsibly, so every little constraint to spending helps.
 
Unforgiven
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

That's $500,000/y the feds contribute to this. Hardly a bank buster.

Why, two years of that almost adds up to one party in Downtown Toronto for the elite and their disciples for a weekend. Fake lake included. Thanks Mike. I mean, Harper.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Why, two years of that almost adds up to one party in Downtown Toronto for the elite and their disciples for a weekend. Fake lake included. Thanks Mike. I mean, Harper.

Yeah, the G20 fiasco certainly didn't help our bottom lines... the cops sure got some nice toys out of it though
 
Machjo
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Well, if insite prevents a couple hundred episodes of hepatitis, hiv infections per year, I would say it's well worth it.

It may very well be.

Withdraw from NATO, NORAD, the OAS, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Francophonie.
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It may very well be.

Withdraw from NATO, NORAD, the OAS, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Francophonie.

Might as well add the UN to that too if we are going full on isolationist.
 
Machjo
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Might as well add the UN to that too if we are going full on isolationist.

Well, I'm not isolationist, but I would be fore eliminating redundancy in our international relations.

Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Why, two years of that almost adds up to one party in Downtown Toronto for the elite and their disciples for a weekend. Fake lake included. Thanks Mike. I mean, Harper.

Withdraw from both the G8 and G20.
 
petros
+1
#20
It's far beter to invest in ourselves than search for ways to short ourselves.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

That's $500,000/y the feds contribute to this. Hardly a bank buster.

That's more than 10 yrs salary for me....Give it to me and I will spend the next 10 yrs devoting all of my time to making everyones life better through reforming government and its role.

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Might as well add the UN to that too if we are going full on isolationist.

I could go for some isolationism, at least until we have less than 1% unemployment, a balanced budget with major debt reduction (and laws in place to keep it that way), fully funded education and healthcare, and a personal tax rate below 12%.

Until these standards are achieved screw the rest of the world. CANADA FIRST!!!
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's far beter to invest in ourselves than search for ways to short ourselves.

Sure there are things worth spending on. But first off, we need to look at where to cut so as to make funds available for these valuable investments. Honestly, I'd have no issue with a tax increase as long as it's fair and that the priority is paying the debt and not to just spend more. Once the debt is paid off, then I could support spending more as long as we're looking at wise investments.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

That's $500,000/y the feds contribute to this. Hardly a bank buster.

No, but its still money! Where did you find a source for how much the Feds pay? I looked and couldn't find it. Can you show me a link please and thank you?
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

That's more than 10 yrs salary for me....Give it to me and I will spend the next 10 yrs devoting all of my time to making everyones life better through reforming government and its role.



I could go for some isolationism, at least until we have less than 1% unemployment, a balanced budget with major debt reduction (and laws in place to keep it that way), fully funded education and healthcare, and a personal tax rate below 12%.

Until these standards are achieved screw the rest of the world. CANADA FIRST!!!

I don't see what employment has to do with this? Ironically enough, the more inefficient government policy is, the more jobs we have. However, if we're looking at wealth, not jobs, then we need to look at more efficient government policy. It saves money but costs jobs. the toughest balancing act of all is to adopt an efficient government policy while also maintaining employment.

Now as for quality education funding, that would be a way of creating work while also promoting more efficient economic policy, thus getting around that dichotomy.
 
MHz
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Here I'm starting a list of ways the Federal Government could save money. Not all of them would be easy to implement. Some would save only a few dollars (but hey, every red cent counts), etc.

Fire every elected person and have the back-benchers start running the things that the Fed does now or move the more seasoned politicians into that position and let the back-brenchers do the Provincial only. We are paying for duplicate survices, with the money saved watchdog commities could again help keep the Gov honest by reporting to the public all the soap opera stuff that goes on in any large corporation. Perhaps even a prize to somebody from the home riding getting to publically fire some Elected person who was caught doing something counter-productive for the 'home-team'.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I don't see what employment has to do with this? Ironically enough, the more inefficient government policy is, the more jobs we have. However, if we're looking at wealth, not jobs, then we need to look at more efficient government policy. It saves money but costs jobs. the toughest balancing act of all is to adopt an efficient government policy while also maintaining employment.

Now as for quality education funding, that would be a way of creating work while also promoting more efficient economic policy, thus getting around that dichotomy.

Employment is a big factor. If unemployment is low you have a greater number of people paying into the governmnet fund, you can then reduce eveyones contribution (lower taxation) and still have an increase in overall revenue. The other advantage that comes from this is that if people have more money in their pocket to spend, most will spend it thereby creating more demand for products and services and stimulating the economy and creating more jobs.

It becomes a positive cycle with a result of the govt having more money to spend an those things we wish them to spend it on while we all have to contribute less per person to achieve it.
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Employment is a big factor. If unemployment is low you have a greater number of people paying into the governmnet fund, you can then reduce eveyones contribution (lower taxation) and still have an increase in overall revenue. The other advantage that comes from this is that if people have more money in their pocket to spend, most will spend it thereby creating more demand for products and services and stimulating the economy and creating more jobs.

It becomes a positive cycle with a result of the govt having more money to spend an those things we wish them to spend it on while we all have to contribute less per person to achieve it.

Sorry, I was referring to cutting government waste so as to create jobs. On the contrary, government waste is a job creator in its own right. Still a waste of money but just saying that if I introduced a program whereby half of the unemployed were hired to dig holes and the other half to fill them in, clearly while cutting such a programme would be a wise move, it would be wrong to argue it on jobs seeing that it would still be creating jobs.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Sorry, I was referring to cutting government waste so as to create jobs. On the contrary, government waste is a job creator in its own right. Still a waste of money but just saying that if I introduced a program whereby half of the unemployed were hired to dig holes and the other half to fill them in, clearly while cutting such a programme would be a wise move, it would be wrong to argue it on jobs seeing that it would still be creating jobs.

I think you are twisting it a bit with your analysis. Obviously 'make work' jobs are not productive and do not boost an economy because the revenue they generate is spent to create the job.

We do need to cut waste and that can be done in many ways including making govt more efficient in its operation. This will reduce the costs and enable lower taxation which starts the cyle of increased spending creating more demand requiring greater supply etc.

In my prior post I was talking about reducing a big portion of the waste in govt by becoming more isolationist and concentrating on our own nation first and foremost. Once we have our house in order and can establish a greater stream of revenue into the govt fund we could then start to open up to helping other countries.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#29
Would it perhaps be wise to purchase one F-35 and see how it works out, before buying a whole fleet?
 
eh1eh
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by alleywayzalwayzView Post

Close down Insite. (external - login to view)


It would be far cheaper to euthanize the attendees.
 

Similar Threads

1
Saving Images
by Said1 | Jul 9th, 2005
no new posts