What to do with surpluses?
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
I don't disagree, but we have to start somewhere....Duffy is just one plug in the dam of leaks.
Just to clarify, when you say debt shouldn't be used to fund social programs, is there any debt financing you would agree with? It's irrelevant really what it's spent on. You will always have social spending, so if you need to say build bridges, or maintain infrastructure, some kind of large capital projects, does it really matter if $1 billion is debt financed for new rail or if it's financed for increased social services in that year? The government makes X, and if they need more then they have to finance Y. How does it matter if it's health care costs or for new infrastructure? The effect is the same.
Those European countries were very different circumstances. Japan has a much higher debt to GDP ratio, yet they haven't collapsed yet, and debt hawks have been saying it will happen for the better part of a decade now.
I'm on board for paying debt down while we can, because I have a feeling we're going to need as much of the income as we can to pay for the social programs you older posters here are going to require, when there are fewer tax payers in my age group to pay the bills. It's coming, and nobody seems to be planning for it.
Those European countries were very different circumstances. Japan has a much higher debt to GDP ratio, yet they haven't collapsed yet, and debt hawks have been saying it will happen for the better part of a decade now.
I'm on board for paying debt down while we can, because I have a feeling we're going to need as much of the income as we can to pay for the social programs you older posters here are going to require, when there are fewer tax payers in my age group to pay the bills. It's coming, and nobody seems to be planning for it.
There is no more pressing issue than debt reduction. Raising taxes is a non starter since it is impossible for people to both save for their retirement, pay their bills and give ever more of their paycheque to the government. GOvernments are going to have to learn to live within their means. If this means cutting programs that is just too bad. The alternative is to end up like Greece. And that is not fair to our kids.
That's simply not true. The infrastructure deficit is one issue that is more pressing. Paying off debt while allowing bridges to collapse is ridiculous
Choked on my coffee reading that.
Like I said, doesn't make it right and I do support the action that these clowns face criminal prosecution.
Social programs (in my view) should be funded from revenues. Differentiating that from things like infrastructure that are periodic, capital intensive and necessary for the economy to run.
My comments are not to suggest that social spending is unnecessary, it is, that said, as El Barto indicated, it is also a function of affordability. The rule of thumb is this: Fund operating costs from revenues (in this case, social programs are operating costs).
Take a close look at Greece right now. They went heavily into debt for a variety of reasons, but social programs were front and center... That expenditure did not result in more long term (tangible) revenues coming back into the tax system and, quite frankly, the Greek society altered their lifestyle(s) to develop a dependence on those programs as they represented the path of least resistance.
Today, their economy is shattered, youth unemployment is heavily into the double digits and they are now in a position where their revenues could not generate the interest charges payable, let alone economic growth, infrastructure, etc
it was good no? lol
yeah I know
for the right size of diamond....oops used my outdoor voice....lol
WE already spend a good portion of our tax $$$$ on infrastructure. Perhaps we need to see how much is being spent wisely and how much is squandered in the bureaucracy. Like most things done by government there are multiple and often overlapping jurisdictions building/financing infrastructure so there is lots of waste.
Our RD is bent on building hiking trails with public money while there are highway projects that need doing. But it is a different level of government. The end result is there is still only one level of taxpayer to finance all the waste of multiple levels of government.
It's irrelevant what portion of our taxes are spent on infrastructure. It's not enough to keep up. It's also not accurate to suggest that being more efficient will solve the problem. It's quite clear that you do not grasp the scope of the problem.
I would love to see them cut taxes. The other stuff sounds good but will no doubt be just another excuse for more bureaucracy and a bigger anchor on us if we do get another downturn.
Having export goods that are landlocked means dump more into infrastructure and open up the Port Of Churchill to year round freight and commodities.
I know the scope of the problem. What I object to is throwing money at it in the misguided hope that it will go away. Also raising taxes. We are way over taxed and that is bad for the economy. SO if you want to spend more on infrastructure then you must cut spending elsewhere. Far too often projects are done not because they are the most needed one in town but the one that some politician wants. Eliminating waste is a good place to start. Adding to the debt is not in our long term best interests.