TENS - Taxed Enough Nova Scotians
- Thread starter atlanticaparty
- Start date
Hi Petros, to me is less about who pays what tax and more about how we spend it. To me it is about finding ways to stabilize the standard of living for everyone while at the same time slowing down progress so that there will be something left for our children. To me a bigger issue is that a house cost 7000 dollars 80 years ago and now it costs over 300,000. But, in the face of discussing taxes and how we spend them, all of my focus at the end of the day involves a future vision where taxes play a vastly different role than they play today. Taxes need to replace labor not simply personal need.
Perhaps I am a little bit of an idealist in my heart but I honestly find merit in the concept of things like raising a family from the point of view that a person at home (male or female) in every family household would remove a great amount of the stress on the job market. There are 2 things that motivate people out the door to work, access to money and boredom. If money wasn't so much an issue I would imagine there would be enough people wanting/willing to stay home to make a difference, given that those who don't can work away as usual.
Dropping taxes would not generate enough income by itself to really make a difference but as everyone feels and has their own idea about, spending is where it is at.
Petros, back to the stalemate. The modern denial of human nature... we are what we are. Yes, some people will squander their money and remain poor by choice. Welcome to freedom my friend.
Lenin and Stalin....one of the hardest mountains society is ever going to have to climb is the one that obscures fundamental concepts that have merit in failed promises of giving the moon.
This is about how we spend the tax money we collect from ourselves.
Dropping taxes would not generate enough income by itself to really make a difference but as everyone feels and has their own idea about, spending is where it is at.
Petros, back to the stalemate. The modern denial of human nature... we are what we are. Yes, some people will squander their money and remain poor by choice. Welcome to freedom my friend.
Lenin and Stalin....one of the hardest mountains society is ever going to have to climb is the one that obscures fundamental concepts that have merit in failed promises of giving the moon.
This is about how we spend the tax money we collect from ourselves.
The $2.3 billion isn't what the province pays...it's the estimated cost of poverty in NS. The cost to the NS government is $600 million. That is the share the NS government has to play with, not $2.3 billion. From your cross-referenced link :
So you can see, the NS government doesn't have that much money to play with. The policy alternatives mentioned in the budget you and I have now linked to, mention increases in spending towards reducing poverty amounting to ~$144 million. With $2.3 billion there are many things the NS government could do, and many options better than simply giving everyone a stipend. Think about the costs when all the unemployed move to NS...that $2.3 billion figure would explode. Personally I think if they had that much money, a better option than giving people money would be to spend on the infrastructure needed to bring new high tech jobs to NS, and to increase the trade leaving the Port of Halifax.
Moving toward Guaranteed Liveable Income
Using the most recent data (2010), we estimate that the direct cost of poverty for the Nova Scotia government is approximately
$600 million dollars per year — and that these costs account for 6.7% of the 2010/11 NS government budget.
When the direct costs to government are added to broader costs of poverty including the loss of income for those living in poverty, this total cost of poverty — $2.4 billion — is equivalent to 7% of Nova Scotia’s GDP (gross domestic product or size of its economy). This corresponds to as much as $2,600 per person, per year. This is consistent with the cost of poverty in other Canadian provinces. 61
Using the most recent data (2010), we estimate that the direct cost of poverty for the Nova Scotia government is approximately
$600 million dollars per year — and that these costs account for 6.7% of the 2010/11 NS government budget.
When the direct costs to government are added to broader costs of poverty including the loss of income for those living in poverty, this total cost of poverty — $2.4 billion — is equivalent to 7% of Nova Scotia’s GDP (gross domestic product or size of its economy). This corresponds to as much as $2,600 per person, per year. This is consistent with the cost of poverty in other Canadian provinces. 61
So you can see, the NS government doesn't have that much money to play with. The policy alternatives mentioned in the budget you and I have now linked to, mention increases in spending towards reducing poverty amounting to ~$144 million. With $2.3 billion there are many things the NS government could do, and many options better than simply giving everyone a stipend. Think about the costs when all the unemployed move to NS...that $2.3 billion figure would explode. Personally I think if they had that much money, a better option than giving people money would be to spend on the infrastructure needed to bring new high tech jobs to NS, and to increase the trade leaving the Port of Halifax.
I guess in effect, rebates on taxes, income tax returns and other tax breaks/loopholes equal pretty much the same as the 2.3 spend differently as we have been discussing..but...spending it in the way we do accomplishes nothing towards the greater problems that plague us. Spending it from a different point of view not only reduces the massive overhead the current way carries but also actually helps to stabilize society through labor issues and so on.
Hi Tonington, thank you for adding some clarity to this conversation. I realize that the 600 million represents the provincial level input and the balance federal level input. Again, it is not where it comes from but where/how it is spent. Not to minimize the where and how taxes are collected but that is a different topic...and a great one!
I am assuming that the 2.3 billion figure represents the cost as per the article, through a combination of federal and provincial funding as well as a deficit carried yearly we manage to cover this.
So, the 600 million does not represent the cost to accomplish the current plan, I shall go looking for the right figure. One of the figures I am looking for is a percentage of poor in the province. 2009 figures point to less than 20% of the province which doesn't represent a large amount of people compared the the large amount of the fund. I know it could likely be more now in 2013.
Personally I think if they had that much money, a better option than giving people money would be to spend on the infrastructure needed to bring new high tech jobs to NS, and to increase the trade leaving the Port of Halifax.
Except, what we really need is to reduce pressure on the job market not increase it. Increasing jobs does not work. Increasing jobs increases inflation and taxes. What we need is stability ore than growth.
Still working on the quote thing....what I wanted to say is that spending more money on creating jobs doesn't work. We need to reduce the pressure on the job market for many reasons, not increase it. More jobs brings higher inflation and taxes, not stability as we need.
"When the direct costs to government are added to broader costs of poverty including the loss of income for those living in poverty, this total cost of poverty — $2.4 billion — is equivalent to 7% of Nova Scotia’s GDP (gross domestic product or size of its economy). This corresponds to as much as $2,600 per person, per year. This is consistent with the cost of poverty in other Canadian provinces. 61"
So 2600 per head is a little better than what I had anticipated and finding that it represents only 7% of NS GDP...when the cost is so little when put in these terms how can we struggle to fund it? From here I guess we need to start discussing how much tax we collect. I do know that in the early 2000s the corporate tax was around 40-50 percent before loop holes and now it is less than 30 percent with less loop holes.
Last year I did a basic tax structure for a simple business plan and over 11 years the company would of moved 181 million through its coffers and only paid roughly 10 million in taxes. To me that is a problem, one that is at the root of most financial issues.
So back to the spending issue...without guaranteeing the 2.3 billion beyond current guarantees...how do we use that money to our best advantage. Reducing the overhead is where it starts which requires a much simpler system. Perhaps a system that focuses on a different set of criteria.
Hi Tonington, thank you for adding some clarity to this conversation. I realize that the 600 million represents the provincial level input and the balance federal level input. Again, it is not where it comes from but where/how it is spent. Not to minimize the where and how taxes are collected but that is a different topic...and a great one!
I am assuming that the 2.3 billion figure represents the cost as per the article, through a combination of federal and provincial funding as well as a deficit carried yearly we manage to cover this.
So, the 600 million does not represent the cost to accomplish the current plan, I shall go looking for the right figure. One of the figures I am looking for is a percentage of poor in the province. 2009 figures point to less than 20% of the province which doesn't represent a large amount of people compared the the large amount of the fund. I know it could likely be more now in 2013.
Personally I think if they had that much money, a better option than giving people money would be to spend on the infrastructure needed to bring new high tech jobs to NS, and to increase the trade leaving the Port of Halifax.
Except, what we really need is to reduce pressure on the job market not increase it. Increasing jobs does not work. Increasing jobs increases inflation and taxes. What we need is stability ore than growth.
Still working on the quote thing....what I wanted to say is that spending more money on creating jobs doesn't work. We need to reduce the pressure on the job market for many reasons, not increase it. More jobs brings higher inflation and taxes, not stability as we need.
"When the direct costs to government are added to broader costs of poverty including the loss of income for those living in poverty, this total cost of poverty — $2.4 billion — is equivalent to 7% of Nova Scotia’s GDP (gross domestic product or size of its economy). This corresponds to as much as $2,600 per person, per year. This is consistent with the cost of poverty in other Canadian provinces. 61"
So 2600 per head is a little better than what I had anticipated and finding that it represents only 7% of NS GDP...when the cost is so little when put in these terms how can we struggle to fund it? From here I guess we need to start discussing how much tax we collect. I do know that in the early 2000s the corporate tax was around 40-50 percent before loop holes and now it is less than 30 percent with less loop holes.
Last year I did a basic tax structure for a simple business plan and over 11 years the company would of moved 181 million through its coffers and only paid roughly 10 million in taxes. To me that is a problem, one that is at the root of most financial issues.
So back to the spending issue...without guaranteeing the 2.3 billion beyond current guarantees...how do we use that money to our best advantage. Reducing the overhead is where it starts which requires a much simpler system. Perhaps a system that focuses on a different set of criteria.
No, the $2.3 billion figure includes loss of income, which isn't really a cost that is paid for, but rather a cost that is lost by an economy that isn't performing. It's an assumption that those in poverty could all have well paying jobs, perhaps they used a median income. It's not clear how they estimated that figure.
The pressure on the job market is that there are unemployed and under-employed people. Increasing jobs increases tax revenue. The change to inflation is based on the price of products, and increasing demand whether it's by gainful employment or hand-outs will both increase inflation. The difference is that increasing employment produces more GDP, and increases tax receipts for the government. Small investments by government do work, just look at the success of programs like Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credits. The government doesn't give hand-outs, it gives tax credits when a company makes investments that produce products for sale in Canada, and increases employment. The long term stability of an economy is arguably better served by having job seekers employed.
That's rubbish. That's exactly what companies do when they hire new employees. Having good infrastructure allows companies to be more productive, and hire new employees. Having a good business environment attracts employers.
In my province, there are over 35 companies involved in the biotechnology industry. My job exists because the PEI government has made an active decision to develop a business environment that favours investment by biotech companies. I wouldn't have moved here if the job I have didn't exist, and my job exists because of the favourable position the government has created here. Believe me, there are many locations around the world better suited for fish health research. Yet the corporation I work for has made large investments here.
Okay, so after being corrected in my math by both my room mate and my son, doing some more searching for figures I come up with this...$2,400,000,000 (contributed by Tonington) spent to care for roughly 200,000 people works out to be 120,000 per head approximately. Even if the percentage of poor in NS today has increased over 2009 figures of census findings regarding the population and the percentage of poor this is ridiculous. At roughly $5600 per head as per tax collected at the federal level and the cost of living given out in monthly payments of roughly $900 a month...the total cost of care for an individual runs at $16,400.00. Round it up to cover unconsidered costs to roughly $25,000 a year, subtract that from the $120,000 represented in the fund...something is wrong ( with more than just my math giggle)
No, the $2.3 billion figure includes loss of income, which isn't really a cost that is paid for, but rather a cost that is lost by an economy that isn't performing. It's an assumption that those in poverty could all have well paying jobs, perhaps they used a median income. It's not clear how they estimated that figure.
Okay, That so totally changes everything. Thanks for teaching as opposed to ranting. I am beginning to love this conversation.Complicated is an understatement.So they did the same thing in a way that I just did and made an assumption on costexcept I failed to understand how a part of that cost is calculated from a loss.
So if you take the rough figure represented by actual cost per person and subtract it from the figure calculated with the loss you get the real cost...I wonder how much of the balance of the 2.4 after the real cost is actually representative of that loss. Somewhere there should be a paper that explains how they figure this out. That would be a good thing to know.
I can understand how in today's environment the only way we know how to move forward is to create jobs. It has only been recently that any real social discussion or acknowledgement of what the world will be like when we need to have 7 billion jobs as opposed to 3. I also understand that most of those conversations go round and round because no one has an answer to the problem. But then how could a person come up with a solution to a problem that contains over a billion dollars of fictitious debt ie: the 2.4 billion cost of taking care of our poor that involves massive charges for nothing given the real cost is only in the millions. Nothing being underproduction.
To me then, it is almost like sensationalism...that article I referenced made a mole hill out of nothing and given that the real cost of caring for the poor does actually fall in the millions and opposed to the billions which represents a miniscule portion of the GDP in NS...
Sensationalism in both the article and in our government, exaggeration on a grande scale. This I can believe. And, actually at the end of the day to try and fund a few million as opposed to a few billion through taxes in such a way as to bring lo9ng term stability in both the value of our dollar and our standard of living should be easier.
Okay, I can concede quite easily that it will take a concerted effort to fund certain fields such as research and agriculture in terms of job production and stability but not without an equal effort to reduce the need for jobs in other areas. It will definitely be a fine balance between the 2. And, we actually over produce on a disgusting scale to provide the amount of jobs we already do.
One thing I am fairly certain of, the figures of consumer demand are as off as our figures that represent currency velocity. Because we are so wasteful, just look at our landfills, real consumer demand gets inflated as does currency velocity due to multiple redundant purchases which ultimately end up in the garbage before its due date. Real consumer demand should reflect a base line set of purchases expected in an average persons lifetime based on a given standard of living. This situation has been created from the mentality that the only way to do the business of living comes from the standpoint that everyone must work.
Again, I do honestly think the only way to change in meaningful ways for long term stability involves better spending and reduced need for jobs. It starts with real figures for budgetary needs and real consumer demand.
Here is another article to help put some figures on the table...accuracy?
CBC wrong about Nova Scotia having "highest taxes in Canada" | Reality Bites
James Sawler, who teaches economics at Mount Saint Vincent University, agrees that on a per capita basis, Nova Scotia does not have the highest taxes. He also points out in an email forwarded to The Coast that “the need for adequate health, education and social programs does not depend on GDP. Given that our GDP is smaller, if NS is to provide programs comparable to other provinces, we may need to tax a greater percentage of GDP.”
Given the nominal amount tax collected as a percentage of GDP I would have to agree with raising taxes. If we are to offer comparable programs or new and different programs our tax base needs to increase. Primarily from simplifying the process of social spending.
No, the $2.3 billion figure includes loss of income, which isn't really a cost that is paid for, but rather a cost that is lost by an economy that isn't performing. It's an assumption that those in poverty could all have well paying jobs, perhaps they used a median income. It's not clear how they estimated that figure.
Okay, That so totally changes everything. Thanks for teaching as opposed to ranting. I am beginning to love this conversation.Complicated is an understatement.So they did the same thing in a way that I just did and made an assumption on costexcept I failed to understand how a part of that cost is calculated from a loss.
So if you take the rough figure represented by actual cost per person and subtract it from the figure calculated with the loss you get the real cost...I wonder how much of the balance of the 2.4 after the real cost is actually representative of that loss. Somewhere there should be a paper that explains how they figure this out. That would be a good thing to know.
I can understand how in today's environment the only way we know how to move forward is to create jobs. It has only been recently that any real social discussion or acknowledgement of what the world will be like when we need to have 7 billion jobs as opposed to 3. I also understand that most of those conversations go round and round because no one has an answer to the problem. But then how could a person come up with a solution to a problem that contains over a billion dollars of fictitious debt ie: the 2.4 billion cost of taking care of our poor that involves massive charges for nothing given the real cost is only in the millions. Nothing being underproduction.
To me then, it is almost like sensationalism...that article I referenced made a mole hill out of nothing and given that the real cost of caring for the poor does actually fall in the millions and opposed to the billions which represents a miniscule portion of the GDP in NS...
Sensationalism in both the article and in our government, exaggeration on a grande scale. This I can believe. And, actually at the end of the day to try and fund a few million as opposed to a few billion through taxes in such a way as to bring lo9ng term stability in both the value of our dollar and our standard of living should be easier.
Okay, I can concede quite easily that it will take a concerted effort to fund certain fields such as research and agriculture in terms of job production and stability but not without an equal effort to reduce the need for jobs in other areas. It will definitely be a fine balance between the 2. And, we actually over produce on a disgusting scale to provide the amount of jobs we already do.
One thing I am fairly certain of, the figures of consumer demand are as off as our figures that represent currency velocity. Because we are so wasteful, just look at our landfills, real consumer demand gets inflated as does currency velocity due to multiple redundant purchases which ultimately end up in the garbage before its due date. Real consumer demand should reflect a base line set of purchases expected in an average persons lifetime based on a given standard of living. This situation has been created from the mentality that the only way to do the business of living comes from the standpoint that everyone must work.
Again, I do honestly think the only way to change in meaningful ways for long term stability involves better spending and reduced need for jobs. It starts with real figures for budgetary needs and real consumer demand.
Here is another article to help put some figures on the table...accuracy?
CBC wrong about Nova Scotia having "highest taxes in Canada" | Reality Bites
James Sawler, who teaches economics at Mount Saint Vincent University, agrees that on a per capita basis, Nova Scotia does not have the highest taxes. He also points out in an email forwarded to The Coast that “the need for adequate health, education and social programs does not depend on GDP. Given that our GDP is smaller, if NS is to provide programs comparable to other provinces, we may need to tax a greater percentage of GDP.”
Given the nominal amount tax collected as a percentage of GDP I would have to agree with raising taxes. If we are to offer comparable programs or new and different programs our tax base needs to increase. Primarily from simplifying the process of social spending.
So it seems to me that you are advocating honest intelligent productive politics focusing on the needs of base individuals and communities. That's a good idea. I'll help all I can. First we will need armaments troops state infrastructure resources manufacturing and last but most two months of hard riding by our own flailing government, just to engender and ensure the interest of the masses has been engaged in the transmission. And certainly a return to nature compelled by nature and of course a total rejection of cheezeburger platters and the telly. now I'm depressed, pass the revolver please ma I don't think I'll have desert this evening
PS I have enclosed a cheque for twenty-five dollars toward the purchase of tank bearings.
PS I have enclosed a cheque for twenty-five dollars toward the purchase of tank bearings.
Frozen of course. First we ship over a surplus fish plant then seals and potatoes both of which we can get in PEI while Ann isn't looking. Supreme leaders have to work I'd rather stay in the shadows and pull strings, especially the string that brings Lola and the heavenly medications.
It's very pleasant to interact by the way, welcome to CC.
First we need to finish shipping over our jobs...then we can get to the cheese burgers and fish. Go rest and be at peace, whilst you wile away the hours I shall give away all that is good and reasonable. In its place we shall leave beautiful chaos and perpetual expansion which will overwhelm any protest and obscure any injustice...
"Perpetual expansion" I like that, it is better than "hope and change" far more definite, overwhelming perpetual expansion, OPE. All I want is the tee shirt concession.
Thank you for the welcome, I am enjoying this too. It is very nice to meet you.
OPE...that does sound catchy doesn't it. Mmm....all I would ask is that you pay your taxes and give a damn where the money goes. Oh, and that you print up t-shirts with my image on them to give away for free. Is it a deal?
But...back to the question at hand... Are we as Nova Scotian's over taxed? No we are not IMO and no, it doesn't take 2.4 billion to care for our poor.
Are we falling down on the job when social funding for NS represents only 7% of the province's GDP when it needs to represent at least 20% IMO? I think so...
Do we need to change the criteria for social programs to ensure sustainability and stability? Yes IMO. Does that involve reducing the need for jobs...yes again IMO.
OPE...that does sound catchy doesn't it. Mmm....all I would ask is that you pay your taxes and give a damn where the money goes. Oh, and that you print up t-shirts with my image on them to give away for free. Is it a deal?
But...back to the question at hand... Are we as Nova Scotian's over taxed? No we are not IMO and no, it doesn't take 2.4 billion to care for our poor.
Are we falling down on the job when social funding for NS represents only 7% of the province's GDP when it needs to represent at least 20% IMO? I think so...
Do we need to change the criteria for social programs to ensure sustainability and stability? Yes IMO. Does that involve reducing the need for jobs...yes again IMO.
Of course even Chairman Dexter tells us that corporate funding is in fact social funding one tiny step removed. Short of swift and radical change in agriculture and housing I do believe we are lost owing to the pending economic crunch. I would immediately train youth and unemployed in these two cardinal skills. It is amazing how easily these basics can be satisfied in Nova Scotia. Efficiencies in both of those necessities are actually very inexpensively gotten by materials already on the land. Of course land use legislation needs revisiting. So much to do and little or no time. There needs to be regulatory amendments in building and zoning as well, the days of Machouse are drawing to a close. It's back to the land one way or the other, why not try a vegetable garden and a clay house, both easily doable in NS.
There's no better social funding than that used to promote housing and food and ultimately this will restore the hundreds of small communities that once thrived in NS and have since been obliterated for effiencies and what kind of monster makes a five year old ride a goddamn bus for three hours a day so they can be exposed to keyboards of conformity at P3 synthetic schools.
Just a tiny fleck of froth hit the screen there, sorry, now what about those armaments we were joking about?
There's no better social funding than that used to promote housing and food and ultimately this will restore the hundreds of small communities that once thrived in NS and have since been obliterated for effiencies and what kind of monster makes a five year old ride a goddamn bus for three hours a day so they can be exposed to keyboards of conformity at P3 synthetic schools.
Just a tiny fleck of froth hit the screen there, sorry, now what about those armaments we were joking about?
Last edited:
In Nova Scotia they have been shafted by everyone who ever made them a proposal.
The reason is they are believers in miracles and political miracles do not exist.
They are in an area where power is expensive, they rely on the wrong energy sources.
Electrical power is expensive when you live next to the Atlantic ocean and they need
to find a natural gas source for example. Of course the infrastructure upgrades will
cost a lot of money. The Atlantic Provinces lived behind the times for decades and now
they don't get it you have to pay for change, and you have to pay for not changing fast
enough.
The right wing idea that you can reduce taxes and still pay the bills is not the problem
anyway. The problem is, we postpone paying the bills or maintaining infrastructure and
when you have to finally act it costs a lot more money.
The reason is they are believers in miracles and political miracles do not exist.
They are in an area where power is expensive, they rely on the wrong energy sources.
Electrical power is expensive when you live next to the Atlantic ocean and they need
to find a natural gas source for example. Of course the infrastructure upgrades will
cost a lot of money. The Atlantic Provinces lived behind the times for decades and now
they don't get it you have to pay for change, and you have to pay for not changing fast
enough.
The right wing idea that you can reduce taxes and still pay the bills is not the problem
anyway. The problem is, we postpone paying the bills or maintaining infrastructure and
when you have to finally act it costs a lot more money.
"Of course even Chairman Dexter tells us that corporate funding is in fact social funding one tiny step removed."
This does not surprise me and I think you hit it on the nail head regarding the changing of land use laws as well as the agricultural shift needed. I've put some thought into the agricultural revolution of the maritime's over the last few years which could be a new discussion some time in the future.
It will be people like you and me and the others on this forum who create the language needed to give politicians the words needed to effect real change. What Dexter said is simply a repeat of a centuries old mentality because of a lack of reasonable new ideas. At the end of the day the biggest voice in Canada, us, still demands more jobs, more social funding and less taxes. Until we change what we ask for nothing else will change.
Personally I am embarrassed to find that the cost of social programs paid for by our taxes in the province represent so little of our combined wealth (provincial GDP) and yet people still scream for lower taxes and say we spend too much...
It is neat to find out that my opinion about social spending isn't perhaps so far off the mark as to prevent someone else to come to the same conclusions and I am all for alternative building methods. I've been watching the development of building standards for the use of recycled shipping containers. As well as the development of acceptable alternative options for toilets and septic systems in lieu of heavy water usage systems in terms of getting permits without imposing the use of such costly and foolish designs.
Hi Damngrumpy, who are they? Do you mean the poor? Yes, when one looks at this situation from the point of view of a victim it looks very unfair. The poor seem to get shafted at every turn. However, it is not only the foolish politicians who are falling short of the mark.
I will agree with you when you say that we procrastinate about infrastructure needs to the point of foolish waste. The hydro grid being one of the best and biggest examples.
Someone in an earlier post mentioned something along the lines of how much time and money we are wasting as a province to locate and utilize reserves of natural gas and other non sustainable resources to achieve OPE...overwhelming perpetual expansion. All in the name of job creation and infrastructure funding.
This does not surprise me and I think you hit it on the nail head regarding the changing of land use laws as well as the agricultural shift needed. I've put some thought into the agricultural revolution of the maritime's over the last few years which could be a new discussion some time in the future.
It will be people like you and me and the others on this forum who create the language needed to give politicians the words needed to effect real change. What Dexter said is simply a repeat of a centuries old mentality because of a lack of reasonable new ideas. At the end of the day the biggest voice in Canada, us, still demands more jobs, more social funding and less taxes. Until we change what we ask for nothing else will change.
Personally I am embarrassed to find that the cost of social programs paid for by our taxes in the province represent so little of our combined wealth (provincial GDP) and yet people still scream for lower taxes and say we spend too much...
It is neat to find out that my opinion about social spending isn't perhaps so far off the mark as to prevent someone else to come to the same conclusions and I am all for alternative building methods. I've been watching the development of building standards for the use of recycled shipping containers. As well as the development of acceptable alternative options for toilets and septic systems in lieu of heavy water usage systems in terms of getting permits without imposing the use of such costly and foolish designs.
Hi Damngrumpy, who are they? Do you mean the poor? Yes, when one looks at this situation from the point of view of a victim it looks very unfair. The poor seem to get shafted at every turn. However, it is not only the foolish politicians who are falling short of the mark.
I will agree with you when you say that we procrastinate about infrastructure needs to the point of foolish waste. The hydro grid being one of the best and biggest examples.
Someone in an earlier post mentioned something along the lines of how much time and money we are wasting as a province to locate and utilize reserves of natural gas and other non sustainable resources to achieve OPE...overwhelming perpetual expansion. All in the name of job creation and infrastructure funding.
I was speaking of the general population actually. There is a cost for everything be it the
social programs or the lack of them for that matter. Social programs are essential but the
people have to understand the true cost and benefit of the money spent. For each program
the other question has to be asked/
Is this programs and expense? Or is this program an investment designed to be of a
benefit to society in the future.
In many cases I feel its not the amount of money collected that counts it is how the money
is spent and for what benefit that matters. In other word what is done with the money?
You are right in saying that considerable amounts get wasted, and that is the problem.
We have to ensure effective spending. The present Government in BC for example is a
conservative government, it has the label Liberal but it is a coalition of Federal Conservatives
and Liberals. It claims a balanced budget which is not true. In addition they have
accumulated more debt that any other government before them, past NDP governments
included.
The Federal Government under Harper is one of the most inefficient in history they have
accumulated more debt that the Liberals have.
What we need first of all is an investment in honesty and ethics and we are a long way from
that. Nova Scotia is a classic example of a party not being in power before thinking they can
change the world. What they should do or should have done was define objectives and
deal with priorities.
social programs or the lack of them for that matter. Social programs are essential but the
people have to understand the true cost and benefit of the money spent. For each program
the other question has to be asked/
Is this programs and expense? Or is this program an investment designed to be of a
benefit to society in the future.
In many cases I feel its not the amount of money collected that counts it is how the money
is spent and for what benefit that matters. In other word what is done with the money?
You are right in saying that considerable amounts get wasted, and that is the problem.
We have to ensure effective spending. The present Government in BC for example is a
conservative government, it has the label Liberal but it is a coalition of Federal Conservatives
and Liberals. It claims a balanced budget which is not true. In addition they have
accumulated more debt that any other government before them, past NDP governments
included.
The Federal Government under Harper is one of the most inefficient in history they have
accumulated more debt that the Liberals have.
What we need first of all is an investment in honesty and ethics and we are a long way from
that. Nova Scotia is a classic example of a party not being in power before thinking they can
change the world. What they should do or should have done was define objectives and
deal with priorities.
IMO What we need is a new political party and 20 years to fine hone it and push a few good people through the ranks. I think the scariest part of this whole scenario is that there are no up and coming politicians who speak a language I/we really need to hear.
Yes, transparency has taken a BIG hit with Harper at the helm and it broke my heart that when we went to vote the last time there wasn't someone better. As Canadian's it is time to put all the current big parties in their place and it will take time to do it. We need something other than the left and the right or simply the middle...or all points in between. Perhaps all those points just don't matter any more now that it means not being able to speak without a party vote in favor.
Yes, transparency has taken a BIG hit with Harper at the helm and it broke my heart that when we went to vote the last time there wasn't someone better. As Canadian's it is time to put all the current big parties in their place and it will take time to do it. We need something other than the left and the right or simply the middle...or all points in between. Perhaps all those points just don't matter any more now that it means not being able to speak without a party vote in favor.