What happened to the $54 billion surplus

[Cannuck]

I'll give you one for free

No need to refund EI surplus: Top court

The ruling was bittersweet for the labour movement, which was seeking a broader declaration that the government overstepped its constitutional powers by accumulating large surpluses in the EI account for more than a decade and then using it toward general spending on debt reduction.
Justice Louis LeBel concluded that it was up to Parliament, under its general taxation powers, to spend the surplus as it saw fit.

 

[Goober]

I know the date of Juan's link. That's irrelevant. The problem is at least a decade old.



The rate of growth has been fairly consistent since 1996.



No you didn't. You claimed others did. Integrity suggests (if not demands) that you point out who you are referring to. Otherwise your statement just looks like more Liberal Party propaganda.



Google "Supreme, Court, EI, Surplus." There's lots out there. The Supreme court sided with the government BTW.

That the SCC sided with the Govt when taking our surpluses from our pension fund - Legal theft - Funny how those rules only applied to Public Service, Military and RCMP -

 

[Niflmir]

I have never been a big fund of the idea of a "slush fund".

It seems to me that money taken from taxes should be put into specific budgets with specific uses. For instance, money from taxes on alcohol and tobacco should only be spent on health care, addiction services, or product control. Similarly, taxes from gasoline should go to paving highways, dealing with emissions, and possibly health care for car accident victims.

I think this way because I don't want to see my taxes paying for things that I don't need. If I only ride a bicycle, why should my taxes pay for the roads? People who destroy the road with their monstrously unnecessary SUV's should be paying.

 

[Cannuck]

If I only ride a bicycle, why should my taxes pay for the roads?

Because the road is used to carry food to your local grocery store. You eat don't you?

 

[taxslave]

I have never been a big fund of the idea of a "slush fund".

It seems to me that money taken from taxes should be put into specific budgets with specific uses. For instance, money from taxes on alcohol and tobacco should only be spent on health care, addiction services, or product control. Similarly, taxes from gasoline should go to paving highways, dealing with emissions, and possibly health care for car accident victims.

I think this way because I don't want to see my taxes paying for things that I don't need. If I only ride a bicycle, why should my taxes pay for the roads? People who destroy the road with their monstrously unnecessary SUV's should be paying.

Dude: if you ride a bicycle you are using the roads for free. Or more correctly subsidized by car drivers. Just like public transit users are being subsidized by car drivers. Since you live in Germany you are being subsidized twice by car owners who pay not only a yearly licensing fee but what amounts to a capital tax on the value of their cars every year.
Ain't socialism grand?

 

[#juan]

Dude: if you ride a bicycle you are using the roads for free. Or more correctly subsidized by car drivers. Just like public transit users are being subsidized by car drivers. Since you live in Germany you are being subsidized twice by car owners who pay not only a yearly licensing fee but what amounts to a capital tax on the value of their cars every year.
Ain't socialism grand?

What nonsense. If you ride a bicycle at least some of your taxes likely pay for infrastructure you don't use and you don't add to the pollution generated by cars.