Federal money-saving ideas.

[PoliticalNick]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Would it perhaps be wise to purchase one F-35 and see how it works out, before buying a whole fleet? :smile:

 

[eh1eh]

Close down Insite.

It would be far cheaper to euthanize the attendees.

 

[In Between Man]

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

I've got a better one here. Cut the Political Party subsidy. Cost is 27 million a year. (source)

 

[PoliticalNick]

I've got a better one here. Cut the Political Party subsidy. Cost is 27 million a year. (source)

Great idea but lets take it a little further and cut political parties entirely. Then after our independant candidates are elected and arrive in Ottawa they can get together and elect the PM. You know like the system was originally designed to operate.

 

[In Between Man]

Great idea but lets take it a little further and cut political parties entirely. Then after our independant candidates are elected and arrive in Ottawa they can get together and elect the PM. You know like the system was originally designed to operate.

Okay, I can agree to that - with the condition that each candidate discloses their philosophical and religious beliefs. In one word how would they label themselves as an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist etc.

 

[petros]

I have a a great idea to increase revenue. Lets tax people for producing CO2 as a by-product of them playing an active role in the economy through consumption of day to day modern life necessities.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I have a a great idea to increase revenue. Lets tax people for producing CO2 as a by-product of them playing an active role in the economy through consumption of day to day modern life necessities.

Why not tax people for producing CO, a gas we produce by exhaling. think of the revenues created by a small rate of say $0.01 per hour you breathe.


Maybe I shouldn't post this, Harpo may get wind and try to implement it.....

 

[In Between Man]

I have a a great idea to increase revenue. Lets tax people for producing CO2 as a by-product of them playing an active role in the economy through consumption of day to day modern life necessities.

That's a "breathing air" tax!!! Pure insanity I tell you! The only possibility of a government taxing your air is if it was concocted by a Liberal majority. The good ol' Tory blues would never do that!

 

[Cliffy]

Okay, I can agree to that - with the condition that each candidate discloses their philosophical and religious beliefs. In one word how would they label themselves as an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist etc.

What the heck does ones religious and spiritual beliefs have to do with anything? We do have separation of church and state you know... well, at least in theory.

 

[In Between Man]

What the heck does ones religious and spiritual beliefs have to do with anything? We do have separation of church and state you know... well, at least in theory.

How realistic is separation of church and state though really? To deny one set of beliefs only means that you identify with a different set of beliefs. To deny one or another into the arena of politics isn't really a free market of ideas, opinions and philosophies is it?

Atheism, agnosticism, Christianity etc. should all be permitted in government.

 

[Cliffy]

How realistic is separation of church and state though really? To deny one set of beliefs only means that you identify with a different set of beliefs. To deny one or another into the arena of politics isn't really a free market of ideas, opinions and philosophies is it?

Atheism, agnosticism, Christianity etc. should all be permitted in government.

People who hold any belief can participate on government but governing is about the nuts and bolts of running a country. I fail to see where religious beliefs have anything to do with it.

 

[In Between Man]

People who hold any belief can participate on government but governing is about the nuts and bolts of running a country. I fail to see where religious beliefs have anything to do with it.

Because the non-religious aren't entitled to a monopoly "working the nuts and bolts". Working the nuts and bolts shapes policies which has consequences and that's too important to leave in the hands of a sole philosophy.