Deficits!

The role of the public in deficits.

I found it significant that the panelists made frequent references to the attitudes of the electorate towards deficit financing and taxation levels during the discussion. The message that I got is that most voters are in favour of stimulus spending aimed at sustaining employment, but horrified at the suggestion that their taxes be raised or that government services which they have come to enjoy be reduced. >>>>I do not feel that we need more statesman-like premiers and prime ministers, or more competent ministers of finance. *What we need is more thoughtful and less selfish voters.* Since they are always going to be in short supply, we'll always find it easy to run up debt, and difficult to pare it back.

posted by Ex-T on 04 November 2009 at 11:53 AM

Total Ignorance

Ex-T: I do not feel that we need more statesman-like premiers and prime ministers, or more competent ministers of finance. *What we need is more thoughtful and less selfish voters.

AMEN !! to that one !! Makes a definitve case for mandatory teaching of economics and finance starting in KINDERGARTEN !! And I don't think it is mere selfishness - but a complete, total and abysmal lack of understanding where the money comes from ! Ignorance is bliss and permits us to print more of the lovely stuff. How about an AGENDA program with a panel of randomly chosen typical voters, and ask them what to do. The answers would likely be so embarrassing that the tape would have to be erased !!

posted by DieterH on 04 November 2009 at 7:36 PM

Government Spending is Out of Control

Selfish voters are not the problem. Thanks to the Chretian/Martin government, most voters understand the problems associated with long term structural deficits, and the advantages of a balanced budget. The problem rests with the McGuinty government who has refused to respond to and barely acknowledged a government financial problem until the economic update last week. We are over a year into this and they "don't want to make hasty decisions". Mr. McGuinty said he thinks, "the people need time to absorb the fact that their government has financial problems". I think McGuinty has been living in an alternate reality. The private sector was aware that we were moving into a recession a year and a half ago. When revenues were good, McGuintys' government put nothing aside for a rainy day and spent the cupboard bare. Last year he gave all the public sector unions 3% or more wage increases for 4 years + benefit increases. This year he's averaging 2.5% for 4 years. The gap keeps growing between private sector and public sector income packages. Mr. McGuinty is still announcing new program spending i.e. all day kindergarten. Have a look at the list of grants handed out by this province. Two years ago Mr. McGuinty was bragging about the 480,000 jobs he had created in Ontario. Turns out 400,000 were government jobs. The panel suggested that the current deficit would increase interest payments on the debt to 12 cents on the dollar. What will it be when interest rates rise from their current levels, which they surely will. I think we need to have a serious conversation about what public services we want the government to provide, and what we are willing to pay for. We appreciate that government spending needs to increase in a recession, but all of this debt is not due to the recession.

posted by joannie on 05 November 2009 at 2:53 AM

Less government plus greater taxation.

I'm convinced that taxes are too low for most Ontarians. that puts me into a tiny minority, I know. The sort of money that people are paying for luxury downtown condominiums indicates to me that the fat cats have huge amounts of discretionary spending. Yes, I understand that taxes can reach a point where initiative is discouraged, and people move to other jurisdictions, taking their money with them. I am not talking about confiscatory taxes, but saying that the very wealthy, and the filthy rich need to be hit harder. As for McGuinty, I am of the opinion that Harris poisoned the well back in the 90s, when he told Ontario voters that he could reduce their taxes, yet continue to provide them with the government services that they valued. He fulfilled just the first half of that promise, while short-changing education - particularly higher education, and hurting other services - such as assuring us of a safe water supply. You want McGuinty to run on an austerity platform do you? You want him to say that he'll raise taxes, while firing tens of thousands of government employees, and reducing a wide range of services? And where do you suppose that would place him in the polls? We NEED higher taxes. We NEED fewer civil servants. We NEED to reduce some services, and postpone implementing others. Most of all we need sensible voters who can set aside their greed and selfishness for the general good. And how many such people have you ever encountered?

posted by Ex-T on 05 November 2009 at 12:16 PM

High Taxation Levels in Ontario

Don Drummond, Senior VP and Chief Economist TD Financial Group said on a recent show that at $40,000 net income the average individual in Ontario is now paying 60% in taxation. He said the percentage is even higher for those with taxable income under $40,000. This is before we add the HST. I respectfully suggest that there is no more room for taxation for the average Ontarian. I'd be interested to know what others think is a reasonable level of taxation.

As for taxing the wealthy and so called filthy rich--there really aren't enough of those people to make up the kind of $$$'s needed. These folks also have a tendency, and the ability to move their money to more favourable jurisdictions.

We cannot continue to ignore the growing gap between the public service workforce and the private sector workforce when it comes to wages, and most especially pensions and benefits.

In this province whenever a service is delisted from healthcare it gets added right on to the public sector extended healthcare plans, paid for by the taxpayer. I pay my own $220/month and it's not as good as the public service plan and doesn't continue in retirement. Average age of retirement in the public service was down to 58 in 2006. The private sector is being encouraged to work until 70 for an extra $186/month on CPP, while these same workers are picking up 50 to 70% of the cost of public sector pensions. End double dipping in the public sector. Your either retired or you aren't. Take the taxpayer off the hook for shortfalls in the public service pension plans--there is a $10.1 billion shortfall 2008-2011 in Ontario. Nobody is picking up the losses in private sector RRSPs. Get rid of short term disability for government workers--EI pays up to 15 weeks for illness. Mandatory Continuing education costs are born by private sector employees--the taxpayer covers the cost for the public sector including higher education. I could go on and on and on....no more space.

posted by joannie on 05 November 2009 at 8:58 PM