Tax and Spend

[captain morgan]

They were enacted in BC as austerity measures. But that doesn't have any meaning whatsoever on the fact that they are right wing policies. Walter just has a hard time with things like that.

I don't see it so much as a right vs left wing policy.. It is more a reaction to the economic conditions of the time.

Chances are that the same stimulus policy would have been employed regardless of the party that was in power simply as the inputs would make sense.

Right, I'm not disagreeing with the decision to stimulate the economy. But facts are that the government isn't taking in enough through tax receipts to pay for it. That means generations like my own will be paying for it, through higher taxes or by getting ripped off in the services we receive for what we pay. That's the appropriate discussion to have in this thread. Running a deficit now means one of two things if the government actually addresses it. Taxes will go up to cover the deficit, or services will decline. We're already seeing the services decline. So getting back to my point, the question really is, are we getting good value or not? A naked number like that presented in the OP doesn't answer that question at all.

The gvt used debt facilities rather than tax receipts to finance the stimulus program because raising the taxes would have stymied the stimulus efforts in the first place. What gvt can only hope for is that stimulus money transacts as much as possible through the system such that they get the money on the back end through GST/PST, corporate, payroll and personal income taxes.

In terms of your generation (and mine), yup - you nailed it - we get the sh*t end of the stick as we will be on the hook for the increase to the overall debt AND should expect a decrease in services.... That said, the question that arises is 'what was responsible debt as opposed to irresponsible debt'.... Look at the details of the debt issues, what they were raised for and make the assessment from there.

 

[L Gilbert]

Um, the OP is referring to CANADIAN issues, not PROVINCIAL issues, so I fail to see the relevance there is to mentioning provincial gov'ts and parties. I really don't think, for instance, that Martin's fed Liberal gov't was like Clark's (BC) prov gov't.


And speaking of apples n oranges; Tonnington is right about using the different types of averages - each indicate different values and results depend on what you are measuring. Most people intend a mean average, which is the total of a set of numbers divided by the number of numbers in that set (in the set 4 1 6 2 6 7 and 8 so the sum of those 7 numbers divided by 7 is the mean). Mode is the number in a set that is used most frequently (in the set 7 3 9 6 3 1 and 8, 3 would be the mode). And median is the number in the middle in an ordered set (in the set 4 1 6 2 6 7 8 the median is 6. After putting the numbers in order, you get 1 2 4 6 6 7 and 8 and 6 is the median.

 

[captain morgan]

Um, the OP is referring to CANADIAN issues, not PROVINCIAL issues, so I fail to see the relevance there is to mentioning provincial gov'ts and parties. I really don't think, for instance, that Martin's fed Liberal gov't was like Clark's (BC) prov gov't.

I was referring to fed issues, but the very same dynamic exists at a provincial level.

And speaking of apples n oranges; Tonnington is right about using the different types of averages - each indicate different values and results depend on what you are measuring. Most people intend a mean average, which is the total of a set of numbers divided by the number of numbers in that set (in the set 4 1 6 2 6 7 and 8 so the sum of those 7 numbers divided by 7 is the mean). Mode is the number in a set that is used most frequently (in the set 7 3 9 6 3 1 and 8, 3 would be the mode). And median is the number in the middle in an ordered set (in the set 4 1 6 2 6 7 8 the median is 6. After putting the numbers in order, you get 1 2 4 6 6 7 and 8 and 6 is the median.

.. And?

I don't really see how this changes the decision making process relative to stimulus programs

 

[taxslave]

Well the B.C. Liberals in power put the largest tax burden on the poor and middle class, favoring the rich and businesses. Dix wants to even the tax burden out a bit and that is a bad thing? The Liberals actually did a lot of union busting , and Dix is not in favor of that, and that too is a bad thing? I might add that the Liberals also cost tax payers extra millions when they set about busting unions. Dix wants to increase funding for education, and health care? How dare he! Obviously that is a very bad thing?:roll:

Did you get all that BS out of your union newsletter? Or did you invent it all yourself.
Your buddy Tricky Dix has publicly opposed every major project that I and my union brothers and sisters depend on for our living and from which we pay enormous taxes so the freeloaders and rich government union employees can live in comfort in the cities.