Macleans: PCs will be cutting jobs to balance budget without carbon tax revenue

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
No plan.


To balance Ontario’s budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs

What would it take for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives to balance the budget, now that every leadership candidate has vowed to scrap their planned carbon tax? The answer: axing the $1.9 billion per-year of investments in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA, or as the Tory platform calls it, the “Liberal Cap-and-Trade Slush Fund”) and cutting roughly 40,000 jobs from the public service.

My intent was not to predict what the Tories would do, rather it was to examine their options. Economically speaking, a $2.8 billion deficit in a province the size of Ontario is easily sustainable, giving the Tories a straight-forward fiscal way of dealing with a lack of carbon tax revenue.

But let’s instead assume that the Tories will not run a deficit, but make up any revenue shortfall through spending cuts. Using the estimates from their platform and removing carbon tax revenue, here is the fiscal landscape in the final three years of their mandate:

Between the “Value for Money” cuts and the projected shortfall, a Progressive Conservative government would need to cut $6.4 billion of spending in fiscal year 2021-22, on top of removing the $1.9 billion of spending from the GGRA. To put that number in perspective, the Ontario government is projected to spend $136 billion on programs in fiscal year 2019-20. There is no spending projection for 2021-22, but seeing as Ontario government program spending is growing by roughly $3.5 billion per year, we can reasonably assume program spending would be roughly $143 billion before the cuts.

A spending cut of $6.4 billion in a budget of 142.8 billion represents 4.5 per cent of projected 2021-22 program spending. To date, no leadership candidate has indicated what the Tories would spend less on. The Ontario government pays for everything from ambulances to paperclips to teacher salaries, so without additional information it is hard to know how such spending cuts would affect Ontarians, in terms of services and jobs.

Excluding municipal workers from our discussion, a 4.5 per cent reduction in employment translates to an employment reduction of 40,500 jobs.

To balance Ontario's budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs - Macleans.ca
 
Last edited:

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,326
4,028
113
Edmonton
So it obviously becomes clear then that the Liberals had to invent a "carbon tax" to cover the costs of increased bad investments (i.e. green energy, shutting down of gas plants, etc. etc.) and it had NOTHING to do with climate change. Uh huh!!


So why lie? Because it's politically expedient and there are those who actually believe it as true!!


What fools we are.....


JMHO
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
It says right in the article that the Liberals budgeted the revenue for greenhouse gas reduction.

This consequently created new jobs as well.

But yes, you certainly are a fool.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,326
4,028
113
Edmonton
It says right in the article that the Liberals budgeted the revenue for greenhouse gas reduction.

This consequently created new jobs as well.

But yes, you certainly are a fool.



You're the fool unfortunately because you are so blinded by the ideology of the elite. Guess they've really pulled the wool over your eyes.


It's truly unfortunate that you can't see what they are doing for the future of the Province; when your debt interest is over $30 Billion a year - A YEAR!!! Do you know what that could do for the economy if invested in hospitals, education, etc.?? Who is truly the fool here?


JMHO
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
The fakenews globalists are playing everyone for fools...
...and no matter how hard you show the proof that things like global warming are a total scam, and that the CAR BONE ATTACKS are a TOTAL BANKER RIP OFF, the more the fools pretend it is real for exactly the type of reason you just described DC.

EVERYTHING IS LIE and a SCAM with these SJW country killing globalists.

Fortunately that's becoming "Just A lot of people's Humble Opinion" as things progress.
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
No plan.


To balance Ontario’s budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs

What would it take for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives to balance the budget, now that every leadership candidate has vowed to scrap their planned carbon tax? The answer: axing the $1.9 billion per-year of investments in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA, or as the Tory platform calls it, the “Liberal Cap-and-Trade Slush Fund”) and cutting roughly 40,000 jobs from the public service.

My intent was not to predict what the Tories would do, rather it was to examine their options. Economically speaking, a $2.8 billion deficit in a province the size of Ontario is easily sustainable, giving the Tories a straight-forward fiscal way of dealing with a lack of carbon tax revenue.

But let’s instead assume that the Tories will not run a deficit, but make up any revenue shortfall through spending cuts. Using the estimates from their platform and removing carbon tax revenue, here is the fiscal landscape in the final three years of their mandate:

Between the “Value for Money” cuts and the projected shortfall, a Progressive Conservative government would need to cut $6.4 billion of spending in fiscal year 2021-22, on top of removing the $1.9 billion of spending from the GGRA. To put that number in perspective, the Ontario government is projected to spend $136 billion on programs in fiscal year 2019-20. There is no spending projection for 2021-22, but seeing as Ontario government program spending is growing by roughly $3.5 billion per year, we can reasonably assume program spending would be roughly $143 billion before the cuts.

A spending cut of $6.4 billion in a budget of 142.8 billion represents 4.5 per cent of projected 2021-22 program spending. To date, no leadership candidate has indicated what the Tories would spend less on. The Ontario government pays for everything from ambulances to paperclips to teacher salaries, so without additional information it is hard to know how such spending cuts would affect Ontarians, in terms of services and jobs.

Excluding municipal workers from our discussion, a 4.5 per cent reduction in employment translates to an employment reduction of 40,500 jobs.

To balance Ontario's budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs - Macleans.ca

Not seeing a downside to either item.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
It says right in the article that the Liberals budgeted the revenue for greenhouse gas reduction.
Which aptly proves the point that the carbon tax is NOT revenue neutral. Meaning carbon taxes in Ontario are nothing but a tax grab. So Dixie was correct after all.

Poor flossie, stupidity through blind partisanship.
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
Just a silly high school kid ike his pal Hoid. They don't understand politics, and like to be contrarians. It's easy to do this when you're 14 and can hide behind an Internet wall.

They will grow out of it. In the meantime, just ignore them. Like Art Linkletter used to say, "Kids say the darnedest things!"
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Which aptly proves the point that the carbon tax is NOT revenue neutral. Meaning carbon taxes in Ontario are nothing but a tax grab. So Dixie was correct after all.

Poor flossie, stupidity through blind partisanship.

Revenue neutral doesn’t mean you get your money back.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Revenue neutral doesn’t mean you get your money back.
Are you seriously that f*cking stupid. Where did I say that?
Was there a corresponding reduction in taxes elsewhere? No? Then the carbon tax is NOT revenue neutral you ignorant, lazy, illiterate dumbf*ck.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Revenue neutral doesn’t mean you cut taxes elsewhere either.
Uh, that's EXACTLY what it means you f*cking moron. C'mon flossy, you can't honestly be this stupid especially after the number of times the definition of revenue neutral has been explained to you on this forum.

Here. This is the Google link for 'revenue neutral. You go right ahead and find a link in there that states 'revenue neutral' means the same as tax and spend. Go ahead, we can wait.
https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C...nZAhXBna0KHYx4CtMQ1QII0wEoAA&biw=1920&bih=984
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
No plan.


To balance Ontario’s budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs

What would it take for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives to balance the budget, now that every leadership candidate has vowed to scrap their planned carbon tax? The answer: axing the $1.9 billion per-year of investments in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA, or as the Tory platform calls it, the “Liberal Cap-and-Trade Slush Fund”) and cutting roughly 40,000 jobs from the public service.

My intent was not to predict what the Tories would do, rather it was to examine their options. Economically speaking, a $2.8 billion deficit in a province the size of Ontario is easily sustainable, giving the Tories a straight-forward fiscal way of dealing with a lack of carbon tax revenue.

But let’s instead assume that the Tories will not run a deficit, but make up any revenue shortfall through spending cuts. Using the estimates from their platform and removing carbon tax revenue, here is the fiscal landscape in the final three years of their mandate:

Between the “Value for Money” cuts and the projected shortfall, a Progressive Conservative government would need to cut $6.4 billion of spending in fiscal year 2021-22, on top of removing the $1.9 billion of spending from the GGRA. To put that number in perspective, the Ontario government is projected to spend $136 billion on programs in fiscal year 2019-20. There is no spending projection for 2021-22, but seeing as Ontario government program spending is growing by roughly $3.5 billion per year, we can reasonably assume program spending would be roughly $143 billion before the cuts.

A spending cut of $6.4 billion in a budget of 142.8 billion represents 4.5 per cent of projected 2021-22 program spending. To date, no leadership candidate has indicated what the Tories would spend less on. The Ontario government pays for everything from ambulances to paperclips to teacher salaries, so without additional information it is hard to know how such spending cuts would affect Ontarians, in terms of services and jobs.

Excluding municipal workers from our discussion, a 4.5 per cent reduction in employment translates to an employment reduction of 40,500 jobs.

To balance Ontario's budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs - Macleans.ca

And where exactly does this magical carbon tax revenue come from? Why is it to be used to balance the budget when it's supposed to be "revenue neutral" and not dumped into the same big bucket as all of the other tax revenue?

This just confirms what I've always thought about carbon taxes ... that they have no real connection with anything environmental. It's a cutesy-poo name for just another tax.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
No plan.


To balance Ontario’s budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs

What would it take for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives to balance the budget, now that every leadership candidate has vowed to scrap their planned carbon tax? The answer: axing the $1.9 billion per-year of investments in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account (GGRA, or as the Tory platform calls it, the “Liberal Cap-and-Trade Slush Fund”) and cutting roughly 40,000 jobs from the public service.

My intent was not to predict what the Tories would do, rather it was to examine their options. Economically speaking, a $2.8 billion deficit in a province the size of Ontario is easily sustainable, giving the Tories a straight-forward fiscal way of dealing with a lack of carbon tax revenue.

But let’s instead assume that the Tories will not run a deficit, but make up any revenue shortfall through spending cuts. Using the estimates from their platform and removing carbon tax revenue, here is the fiscal landscape in the final three years of their mandate:

Between the “Value for Money” cuts and the projected shortfall, a Progressive Conservative government would need to cut $6.4 billion of spending in fiscal year 2021-22, on top of removing the $1.9 billion of spending from the GGRA. To put that number in perspective, the Ontario government is projected to spend $136 billion on programs in fiscal year 2019-20. There is no spending projection for 2021-22, but seeing as Ontario government program spending is growing by roughly $3.5 billion per year, we can reasonably assume program spending would be roughly $143 billion before the cuts.

A spending cut of $6.4 billion in a budget of 142.8 billion represents 4.5 per cent of projected 2021-22 program spending. To date, no leadership candidate has indicated what the Tories would spend less on. The Ontario government pays for everything from ambulances to paperclips to teacher salaries, so without additional information it is hard to know how such spending cuts would affect Ontarians, in terms of services and jobs.

Excluding municipal workers from our discussion, a 4.5 per cent reduction in employment translates to an employment reduction of 40,500 jobs.

To balance Ontario's budget without a carbon tax, the PCs will need deep cuts to spending and jobs - Macleans.ca

If the PCs were wise, rather than promising to no carbon tax, they'd promise deep cuts instead and simply present no carbon tax as a preference as long as they can pay the debt. This would make fiscal conservatives like me believe them more. If they succeed in their deep cuts, then no carbon tax. If they fail, then carbon tax is the responsible solution.

Personally though, I'd rather a carbon tax in exchange for lower taxes elsewhere, maybe in income tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
If the PCs were wise, rather than promising to no carbon tax, they'd promise deep cuts instead and simply present no carbon tax as a preference as long as they can pay the debt. This would make fiscal conservatives like me believe them more. If they succeed in their deep cuts, then no carbon tax. If they fail, then carbon tax is the responsible solution.

Personally though, I'd rather a carbon tax in exchange for lower taxes elsewhere, maybe in income tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax.

That's not going to lower your taxes. It might make you feel better about shelling out your tax money if you put your brain in neutral and swallow the "green fees" guff.