CBC Braces For Deep Budget Cuts


taxslave
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Of course there is. That's the whole purpose behind lots of government funds. My company get's R&D tax credits from the Feds. Some from the province too. All my hours are tax deductible, to the tune of about 35% of my salary. Up to the first $3 million in qualified expenditures. After the $3 million amount is reached, it drops to 20% on everything else.
They're called SR&ED credits. These tax credit subsidies are valuable to the government, because for every $1 the government gives up in taxes, they get back $1.17 roughly in the taxable spin-offs. Companies hire more employees, and buy more equipment, and all of that generates more revenue for the government.
So, let's look at the CBC data we have and do some simple math. $1.7 billion turned into $3.7 billion. Let's use a constant population to make it easy, say 34 million. That means that for the $50 that they collected from each of us, it generated nearly $109 in economic activity. That's a multiplier.
We have city cops here. Why do we need the RCMP? There's some out there who would probably even say we don't need them at all. So who get's to pick and choose what they pay for? Some people would disagree with you, and if you take your money back, what's to stop others from taking their money back? I'm pretty sure Gerry says no to death, so funding wars is likely out for him, and lots of others too.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Read the Captains post. This multiplier thing is largely bunk. The First Dollar is that brought in by exporting resources. Anything else is just recirculating existing money. All spending tax money does is the government directs where your spending goes instead of you deciding what you might like to purchase.

Junior gave taxpayers borrowed money to spend. He might as well have cut out the middle man and gave the money directly to businesses.
 
Tonington
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Read the Captains post. This multiplier thing is largely bunk.

So, the government is subsidizing 35% of my salary, why? It's not bunk, what Captain peddled is free market crap.

Seriously, if you think that having two or three separate public broadcasters would produce equally good results, then there is something wrong with that picture. In economics it's called diminished marginal utility.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Anything else is just recirculating existing money.

No, not true. If that were true, we could easily predict a new corporate tax base given a change to the corporate tax rate. It's not a one to one change.
 
captain morgan
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

CBC is funded significantly less than that. But hey it would buy you a liter of rum if you got it back.
Jesus, this guy can't have taken introductory economics. Is he an economist Captain Morgan???

He knows about zilch when it comes to the concept of utility. And pushing it that way shows that his argument is pure bunkum.


I would imagine that the author is a little familiar with economics, afterall, I doubt that the Montreal Economic Institute would publish it on their website. In fact, I understand that the author was the former head of the Montreal Economic Institute.... But, what would he possibly know.

How about you, micro and macro econ in your 1st year?

... So, what was that you were saying about his argument being 'pure bunkum'?
 
Kreskin
#34
I like a balance of public and private programming.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#35
Never mind Canada the CBC is one of the finest broadcasting companies in the world.
This government is about to treat the CBC with the same respect it has for the farm
community.
They will praise their achievements and state how valuable they are and then they will
stab them in the back.
CBC is the mainstay of the cultural society, never mind the right left divide, its about who
we are and why we do what we do. CBC radio doesn't get into the commercial end of
broadcasting therefore there is no companies who pay for adds that they are beholden to.
This is an organization that despite how much politicians try to destroy it, it keeps on
surviving and will get through this too.
The CBC will be around long after the conservatives are a mere memory in Canadian
history.
 
Dexter Sinister
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

I like the radio but after 2 months with nothing but CBC for television I dont want to ever see another episode of Coronation street.

I hear you, five minutes of Coronation Street bores me to tears, but given the kinds of remote places you seem to hang around in, if it weren't for CBC you wouldn't have television at all. Which is part of the point of CBC in the first place. The private sector will not offer services where it can't turn a profit, the public sector can and does, that's what it's for.
 
JLM
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

I hear you, five minutes of Coronation Street bores me to tears, but given the kinds of remote places you seem to hang around in, if it weren't for CBC you wouldn't have television at all. Which is part of the point of CBC in the first place. The private sector will not offer services where it can't turn a profit, the public sector can and does, that's what it's for.

My brother is addicted to Coronation Street but I have never worked up enough enthusiasm to even watch a complete episode.
 
Tonington
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I would imagine that the author is a little familiar with economics, afterall, I doubt that the Montreal Economic Institute would publish it on their website. In fact, I understand that the author was the former head of the Montreal Economic Institute.... But, what would he possibly know.

I'm sure he knows lots, but he's a lawyer who runs a think tank. There's obviously some basic stuff he doesn't know, or he's doing like lots of other think tanks and trying to score political points while ignoring fundamental econometrics.

Quote:

How about you, micro and macro econ in your 1st year?

I had both in my first year. Required courses. His argument is full of wholes. If you disagree then perhaps you'd like to explain how the current accepted definition of utility is wrong, and explain his magical new paradigm.

Quote:

... So, what was that you were saying about his argument being 'pure bunkum'?

It's bunkum.
 
Machjo
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

A private entity will not push the Canadian culture and as far as our Conservative government is concerned American programming is fine with them.



I watch very little TV. As for books, I read American, British, Canadian, French, and others. Who cares? Culture is culture.


The problem I see with "Canadian Content" laws concerning Canadian programming is the same as with newspapers, magazines, books, music, etc. There is a whole world of cultures there, many books and info not available on Canadian content. Should we really limit our world view?
 
pgs
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Great a movie critic. so because the fact that you do not like a program it's enough to cut funding. sure.

oh yeah Dragons' Den

I suppose you prefer CTV or FoxNews.. way before Canada had FoxNews, I had it on my DirecTV. Sh!t, you were still probably sucking your mothers t!t when I started with DirecTV. (view from Apartment, English Bay)

I was one of those who thought, OH Canadian TV sucks.. ran down to Bellingham, WA to setup and account and a P.O. Box. in the year 1995.

17 + years of being a loyal customer of DirecTV and I have grown to have a greater appreciation for Canadian TV, Canadian Nationalism and Canadian Unity.. I will be traveling to the NWT this summer on vacation because of CBC ads.. spending $5,000 +



I will tell you what sucks.. THIS!! Go watch you're FOXNews

[youtube]baGbFtmCPvU[/youtube]

pre FoxNews Canada

[youtube]x-6ZjEQwhrY[/youtube]

Never watch Fox news but then I am not paying for it.
There are lots of other channels,but I don't watch much of them either.
And if it is any of your business I finished sucking my mothers *** long before 1995.
If that added any thing to the conversation.
I stand by my point anything available on CBC is easily cpoied or available on other networks.
If as another poster mentioned a first class broadcaster they can stand alone.
End all funding for CBC>

p.s.
I am also against tax $ funding private companies as well.
I would pull tontington's companies funding in a heartbeat.
It is not the governments place to pick winners and losers.
 
captain morgan
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I'm sure he knows lots, but he's a lawyer who runs a think tank. There's obviously some basic stuff he doesn't know, or he's doing like lots of other think tanks and trying to score political points while ignoring fundamental econometrics.

Think about what you just posted... The UN, including the IPCC is headed by Ban Ki Moon. Does that mean because Moon is not a climatologist that the IPCC has no expertise in climatology?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I had both in my first year. Required courses. His argument is full of wholes. If you disagree then perhaps you'd like to explain how the current accepted definition of utility is wrong, and explain his magical new paradigm.

Like what holes? What magical new paradigm?

Read what taxslave posted and you'll get the gist, gvt funneling money from one department to another does not represent a new source of capital into the system. From an economic standpoint, all the CBC is doing is funding another department to the tune of $1 billion a year.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Think about what you just posted... The UN, including the IPCC is headed by Ban Ki Moon. Does that mean because Moon is not a climatologist that the IPCC has no expertise in climatology?

 
captain morgan
+1
#43
I see that you're up to the same old partisan crap again.

Maybe you ought to highlight your buddy's post on that Flossy.... Apparently the Montreal Economic Institute has no value as the head is a lawyer.
 
Machjo
#44
Just for the record: on the rare occasions that I do watch TV, it usually is the CBC or SRC. However, I also think it's unfair to oblige others to subsidize the channels I watch. And never mind others, seeing that I myself watch little TV, why should I be subsidizing couch potatoes?

So the point heer is not even whether one enjoys CBC programming, but whether it's right to have it subsidized by those who don't enjoy it when they prefer other channels or other activities besides TV altogether. How about the government subsidize the gazettes I'm subscribed to instead, eh?

I'm sure you see the point.
 
Cliffy
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Oh oh!! Tonington.. now don't you be picking on the Queens Cowboys.. now.

That's a National Symbol, known around the world.

Canadian firing squad.
 
B00Mer
#46
Here is the Mexican Firing squad

 
Tonington
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Think about what you just posted... The UN, including the IPCC is headed by Ban Ki Moon. Does that mean because Moon is not a climatologist that the IPCC has no expertise in climatology?

Think about what I posted perhaps... Did I question the institute, or the person who made the comments? I even addressed some of the biggest and easiest, the ones sticking out like a bloodied zebra. I never said the institute had no expertise, I didn't even say that author has none. I questioned if he is an economist. It would be equally correct to question Ban Ki-Moon if he made obvious errors in anything he says or writes. I simply noted some fundamental problems with the content of his dismissal.

Besides, it'a an appeal to authority to accept his word simply because of his position. He very well could be correct, but that would have to do with the content, not the job title...

There are legitimate criticisms of economic multipliers, but he's far off in his dichotomy of the economic multiplier being a choice of funding CBC or giving Canadians a rebate. That's what ironic, an analysis of economic multipliers should not leave out so many options. In fact the Deloitte analysis even included costs to the private broadcasters in the analysis. The result was a reduction in the net economic value by half a billion dollars.

Second, his contention that if the analysis were correct, then why doesn't the government fund two or three separate public broadcasters is a huge error. An easy example to compare to is Auto manufacturing. Like broadcasting, there are few firms in automobile manufacturing. If someone wanted to get the same economic benefit of say Toyota, would you expect that to be possible by replicating the entire Toyota corporation two or three times?

That is ridiculous. It's going to flood the market with product, and additional product will have reduced utility. This is a very simple, introductory concept in economics.

My only question is, does the President of a respected economic think tank really not know of this, or is there something else? Maybe Quebecor funds the think tank??? I know Colpy for one insinuated that having the CBC pay for the Deloitte analysis may have had something to do with the results.

Or, maybe Michel Kelly-Gagnon writes for QMI agency, which seems to have knives out for CBC???

Well, see for yourself (external - login to view), he in fact does write for QMI. You know that Doctors are supposed to be up-front when they work for a pharmaceutical corporation. Along with many other professionals, it's a potential conflict of interest.

Hmmm. Interesting.
 
Durry
#48
The Gov should CAN the CBC.
Nobody likes the CBC in the west. The west supports the east thru equalization payments, there is no need for the west to support an eastern broadcaster as well.

Can it, altogether !!!
If the easterners want it, they can pay for it themselves !!
 
B00Mer
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Nobody likes the CBC in the west.

What constitutes west? I have been pro-CBC on the forum and I live in Vancouver. where do you live in Victoria or Ucluelet, BC??

Or do you figure Red Neck Ville Alberta to be the only west?

Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

If the easterners want it, they can pay for it themselves !!

Wow, it's and East vs West issue with you.. not about Canadian culture, heritage and history, supporting Canada tourism and a Canadian opinions.

You know what the real issue you here is.. CBC is considerd the Liberal talking head and CTV the Conservative talking head, so it's an attack on Liberals from the Conservative right by attacking CBC funding.

There is the truth of the matter..
 
Durry
#50
Anybody who thinks their entertainment value should be subsidized by the Government has to be a real loser.
Maybe these same people also think the Gov should wipe their tu tu's as well. So very useless !!! Stupid !!!
 
lone wolf
+2
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Anybody who thinks their entertainment value should be subsidized by the Government has to be a real loser.
Maybe these same people also think the Gov should wipe their tu tu's as well. So very useless !!! Stupid !!!

How much do YOU pay for membership?
 
B00Mer
+1
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Anybody who thinks their entertainment value should be subsidized by the Government has to be a real loser.
Maybe these same people also think the Gov should wipe their tu tu's as well. So very useless !!! Stupid !!!

Oh eh, eh oh...

Failed at an intelligent come back, so now we have to go with the name calling..

Seriously if that is your rebuttal to my post, the only loser here is, well.. it's not me.
 
JLM
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Anybody who thinks their entertainment value should be subsidized by the Government has to be a real loser.
Maybe these same people also think the Gov should wipe their tu tu's as well. So very useless !!! Stupid !!!

Is access to things like the news, weather, road conditions, market reports entertainment.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Oh eh, eh oh...

Failed at an intelligent come back, so now we have to go with the name calling..

Seriously if that is your rebuttal to my post, the only loser here is, well.. it's not me.

Can't cut it eh, when it's directed at YOU?
 
Dexter Sinister
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Nobody likes the CBC in the west.

I dunno, seems to me both CBC tv and radio generate respectable audience numbers in the west, somebody must like it. Besides, nobody means zero people, so all it takes to falsify that claim is one person. I'm in the west, and I like the CBC, therefore you're wrong. Gotta watch those easily falsifiable sweeping generalizations if you want to make a convincing case, otherwise all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot.

Looks like you don't know much about how equalization works either. It's not a transfer from some provinces to other provinces.
 
Locutus
#55
ن Bossy BlueGood ن ‏@BlueGood2 (external - login to view)

TY @cbcradio (external - login to view) finally got @pmharper (external - login to view) 's announcement on HOUSING after yr Bullschit abt #DUFFY (external - login to view) #DUFFY (external - login to view) #DUFFY (external - login to view) @ NOON 2DAY
(external - login to view)

(external - login to view)
www.conservative.ca/cpc/supporting-home-ownership/ … (external - login to view)





 
Locutus
#56
There is often a thin line separating hard-hitting political satire and outright political activism. Through some of his recent actions on Twitter, I believe “This Hour Has 22 Minutes” personality and CBC humour columnist Mark Critch has crossed that line, and has compromised his professional obligation, as a CBC representative, to avoid clear and unambiguous partisan activity.

On August 12, Mr. Critch wrote a series of tweets intended to provoke opposition to Conservative candidate Paul Calandra.




His actions were described by other media as an unambiguous activist campaign, for example, in the August 14, 2015 story by The Canadian Press: “Mark Critch launches Twitter campaign against MP Paul Calandra.”

CBC policy 2.2.17 states that “News, current affairs and public affairs personnel who are subject to CBC/Radio-Canada’s Journalistic Standards and Practices (“JSPs”) may not engage in designated political activities,” which “designated political activities” being previously defined in the same policy as “publicly supporting a candidate or political party,” among other things.

I believe that a reasonable reading of 2.2.17 would classify Mr. Critch’s actions towards Mr. Calandra as unacceptable “political activities” as Mr. Critch was waging a campaign of overt opposition to Mr. Calandra for reasons that were not satirical or humorous in purpose, but simply rooted in Mr. Critch’s personal dislike for Mr. Calandra’s conduct as a politician.

Mr. Critch should be suspended from commenting on his CBC Twitter account and CBC News until he apologises and admits his comments and actions broke CBC policy.

Regards

Dean Skoreyko


https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2015/08...ive-candidate/ (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post



MONTREAL - The head of the CBC says he fears that imminent budget cuts might affect programming and is anxious to learn what percentage of funding he will lose.

In a speech to the Montreal Board of Trade, Hubert Lacroix said Friday that he's wondering whether the looming cuts will keep the CBC from fulfilling the objectives set out in its latest strategic review.

The comments come as the Harper government prepares deep spending reductions in its upcoming budget, with departments being asked to prepare scenarios for clawbacks of either five or 10 per cent.

''The questions preoccupying me right now, just a few weeks before the (federal) budget, are very simple: How many dollars will be taken away, and how quickly?'' Lacroix said.

''Will we be able to respect the promises laid out in our strategic plan? How many jobs will be affected by these cuts?''

Lacroix said that, upon ''reading the tea leaves we think (the cutback) might be closer to 10 per cent,'' although he stressed that he had no idea what the government is planning.

CBC/Radio-Canada receives $1.1 billion a year. The Crown corporation already cut $171 million from its budget two years ago and eliminated 800 jobs at the time.

In his speech, Lacroix said there was no viable public model for Canadian broadcasting to survive without government support — not even in the private sector.

He expressed frustration with all the criticism levelled by the Quebecor media chain against public money going to the CBC. Lacroix said he estimates that private broadcasters also receive $900 million a year in subsidies and ''other advantages'' from the public purse — including Quebecor.

According to Lacroix, the CBC costs each Canadian $34 per year and offers quality service for that money.

Source: Canada Budget 2012: CBC Braces For Budget Cut Of Unknown Size (external - login to view)

////////////////////////////////////////

As long as they don't mess with my Arctic Air... Damit

Given how much English and French media is available in the private sector already (which essentially makes it redundant), I'd rather my portion go to sign-language, indigenous language, or other media that would likely be far more appreciated. What's the point of the public sector doing what the private sector is doing already?
 
no new posts