Spot the conservatives
Average per capita spending, in constant 2006 dollars:
*excluding 1979-80 Conservatives
| Liberals, fiscal 1964-68 | $2,764 |
| Liberals, 1969-1985* | $4,643 |
| Conservatives, 1986-1993 | $5,402 |
| Liberals, 1994-2006 | $5,051 |
| Conservatives, 2007-09 | $5,857 |
*excluding 1979-80 Conservatives
3/22/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
63 Comments
what do yo think a Liberal minority Govt budget would have averaged/per person in 2007.
How about a Liberal majority govt in 2007 ?
They have a lot of very expensive programs in their toy bag.
and the whopper . . what the average.person be for an NDP majority gov't ??
Shouldn't there also be a comparison between the spending and the overall size of the economy?
Andrew, use gov't spending as a % of GDP. By your logic a billionaire that spends a million dollars a year is more thrifty than somebody earning 999,999/year that spends 100% of their income.
Even by that measure the Conservatives are expanding the size of government, to be true.
Also, you have about a million ommitted variables in your simplistic analysis. For instance, minority parliaments.
AC - your displeasure with Flaherty's budget is starting to get a little boring. You know it, I know it, heck; even my cat knows that in order to win a majority in this country, you have to buy off Ontario and Quebec. Harper is doing what he's gotta do to win that illusive majority and perhaps if he's successful, we can all look forward to the end of massive spending at budget time. Of course to do this, he'll still have to solve that ol' bugaboo about federal elections being decided in Ontario and Quebec, so I guess I am just going to hold my breath and wait for you to offer your suggestions that will help Harper (or any Conservative government) win a majority without pandering to vote rich Ontario and it's french cousin.
Crap.... I am about to pass out now. Sigh...
I don't think it's that fair criticizing a minority government's budget. I'm as upset as the other that I don't get any tax relief, but I understand that this budget is necessary to get a majority. Once Harper gets a majority, the budget will be more balanced, or it better be !!!
Can you redo it as a percentage of per capita income in 2006 dollars?
We're asking our governments do do more for us all the time (I'm not happy about that; it's not healthy) but perhaps we can afford it?
Sean how does the political calculus change from getting a majority to keeping one. I'll help: it doesn't change. With no sign at all of restraint in this budget and tons of pandering Harper has set an awful precendent and signals he is willing to do anything to get a majority. You're convinced that he will then change tack. I am not.
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind buying votes to get a majority under the unstated (but, for some reason, widely believed) promise that once a majority is secured, fiscal responsibilty will, all of a sudden, become important.
It seems that would leave the Conservatives with two undesireable options. Run on their record, or put another way, deceitfully implying that Canadians can expect more of the same, all the while knowing that spending cuts and tax-breaks are in the pipeline. Or, running away from their record, essentially saying: sure, that's how we used to govern, we won't govern that way anymore.
Andrew, perhaps you should include what the $$ were spent on.
Culture vs hospital beds
Aboriginals vs Aboriginal bureaucracy
Law enforcement vs halfwayhouses
Adscam vs schools
Vegas seminars vs highways
CBC vs troops
bridges vs United Nations
Enviro-fanatics vs drinking water
Kyoto vs clean air
Mulroney's years do not count. Just another in a long list of Power Corp boys. Trudeau, Strong, Chretien, Mulroney, Martin, Desmarais, Total,
So, basically, fiscal conservatives who vote for the CPC have to ignore real world evidence, relying on faith that Harper et al are deceiving everyone with this budget about where the CPC wants to take the country. This, apparently, is the best case scenario. Is that about right?
I'm not pleased to see such big increase in spending, it could have been worse though it could have come with a Mulroney sized budget deficit attached. I'm not sure how they paid off 22 billion worth of dept, does that mean there was about a 13 billion dollar surplus last year and this year and only about 4 billion of those 2 budget surpluses were not used to pay off debt? I read that with all the spending they are only forcasting a 300 million dollar surplus in the current year, would that forcast account for GDP growth in the current year?
I think this budget has been a huge blunder. While being to clever by half with equalization/undermining Duceppe/undermining Dion/vote buying in 905 or whatever it ignored the long term picture and irritated the base. The long term picture is the party's inability to, as previous commenters have pointed out, change course and suddenly become the party of restraint. By not putting a single fiscally conservative measure in the budget they have left no signal and have twig to cling to that they mean to do anything other than shovel money at problems to win votes. Spending like Liberals without the corruption not a proud achievement, it is the minimum you expect from any government and from this government a lot of us expected more. let's stop making excuses that this is about getting a majority when it is not. it is about buying a majority and the mortgage payment on the purchase will make it hard to dramatically change course over the next few years. So we are set back in that the FiscCons will get a few hushhush bones thrown at them in the next budget instead of this one. But if they had of put a few small pieces of restraint in this steaming pile they could, in the future, point to them and say "we started being prudent and are building on it". Now the media will savage them in future the because any restraint will be portrayed as a "dramatic change of course" and "Tories start cutting" and "Harper shows true colours" -- even if it is untrue ,which for the media, esp Globe and CBC, is irrelevant.
And of course let us not forget that green-hysteria pandering. I don't care what the polls say that ecoCar program and Carbon sequestration are pure boondoggles.
"Anonymous:
Shouldn't there also be a comparison between the spending and the overall size of the economy?"
Yes, it would be a helpful comparison. The per capita number shows the relative intrusion of government in people's lives, which all conservatives would agree, should be going down or at least remain stable. Given that government supplies our healthcare and our population is getting older, plus the knowledge economy requires more and more advanced education (supplied by government universities), this number going up shouldn't be a surprise.
The big question is whether the growth of government is expanding beyond our ability to pay, hence the need for spending as a % of GDP. I don't know whether the data is good or bad, but it would be interesting to juxtapose against this data.
Also, tax credits represented as spending is a bit misleading. I know why it's done from an accounting perspective, but it's not really spending in the "lets create a new bureaucracy" sense of traditional government spending.
Does AC trust Flaherty to make good on his vow to limit spending to below growth in the economy, averaged over 4 years?
Or does he trust a future Liberal finance minister (Goodale again?) to rein in spending?
I know who I'd put my trust in ...
Don't be silly Andrew, your numbers are backwards.
Us evil Harper/Bush supporters have no regard for anyone and all we do is cut taxes.... we don't spend money on anyone for anything.
Its those soft moderate liberals that spend all the money on making peoples lives better.
Us conservatives would never stand for that. (Or don't you listen to the media in this country)
LMAO
Do your numbers include interest coverage on inherited debt?
Excerpt from Paul Wells' Right Side Up, p. 160-161:
«And on November 24 [2005], the day of Harper’s speech on his confidence motion, the squawking [in Press Gallery offices] became almost a running commentary as announcement followed announcement. Across Canada, Liberal ministers, ex-ministers, and wanna-be future ministers had fanned out to announce stunning amounts of new spending. On the first day of that week there had been eleven such announcements. Today there would be thirty. ...
Later, when the unprecedented blizzard of Liberal spending was over, the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation totted up the costs. In the first three weeks of November, the Martin government had announced $24.5 billion in new spending, about 15 per cent of total federal program spending for a year.»
I just thought recalling this information might be interesting for those who have a talent for number crunching. That leaves me out, but I'm glad to help whenever I can ...
Anonymous wrote:
>>Sean how does the political calculus change from getting a majority to keeping one. I'll help: it doesn't change. With no sign at all of restraint in this budget and tons of pandering Harper has set an awful precendent and signals he is willing to do anything to get a majority. You're convinced that he will then change tack. I am not.<<
I'm not entirely convinced Harper has any intention of governing until he dies in office. Moreover, the last thing on his mind is the likelihood of keeping a majority - he's got to get one first. I am confident he will change tack because of his "secret hidden agenda" - not the one about making women remain barefoot and pregnant or teaching creationism versus evolution or the one about turning back the clock on reproductive rights. Everything about the guy has been until this budget, precisely about smaller government, provincial autonomy and no federal interference. What he's run into headfirst is that wall commonly known as the Canadian electoral system that says Ontario/Quebec will decide what's good for the rest of the country in perpetuity.
Harper is about massive massive decentralization and he can't unveil that until he has a majority because it will scare Ontario/Quebec voters right into the arms of the Liberals. He's got to get that majority first and in order to win, he's got to buy off the old guard before he can ring in the kind of change that is written into his genetic code. Don't underestimate the guy...
Sean,
Huge difference, you can ride out unpopular decisions under a majority. Think GST being the best example. You could never have introduced a GST in a minority parlaiment.
Keeping one, easier to point to results over time but yes it tends to get a little silly as you get to the year before the election.
You people all think too much.
This budget is about Harper surviving into 2008 and getting Bloc support for it while fulfilling a campaign promise to reduce the fiscal imbalance.
Nothing more, nothing less.
All the other spending in the budget is about 3.5%, most of which is military - which means the Conservatives are growing other spending at less than the rate of inflation or growth in the Canadian economy.
Given that government supplies our healthcare and our population is getting older, plus the knowledge economy requires more and more advanced education (supplied by government universities) ...
There's your problem right there. These are not "givens" these are "takens". Everyone assumes that government "must" take people's temperatures, irradiate their cancer, and teach their kiddies how to type on a computer. Just like everyone in Cuba assumes that its a "given" that government will supply their food, build houses for them and give them a job. Governments don't do what people think they do. The money they take from you is thrown away on gigantic, fat, unresponsive bureaucracies (after the politicians subtract a very big cut) and when people complain that the government services are lousy, their only reaction is to raise taxes, inflate the currency, and hire even more bureaucrats to "improve services".
Buzzwords like "aging population" and "knowledge economy" are nothing but cynical propaganda devices intended to reinforce people's fear of living without government nannies.
One of the thing i don't get about the budget is that they always annonce things and money for like 5-7 years in advance.
But then, they make a new budget every year where they seem to change everything and give us new numbers for everything again. So what was the point of annocing things for 5 yr.
I think they should stick to 1 year.
Andrew,
do you, like many others, include tax credits (returning taxes paid back to the taxpayer) included in "spending?"
If so, then a government could tax Canadian's at 100%, have a tax credit of a 100% of the taxes and have
the highest "spending government" of all time, without any taxes or government programs.
Rediculous no?
"
All the other spending in the budget is about 3.5%, most of which is military -"
there is 0% increase in military spending in this budget.
Zero, nada, zilch.
Too bad, that is the one place they should be increasing spending.
And it would so piss off the champagne socialists, the latte liberals and the pantywaists who support the Taliban.
Upon furthur consideration, in order to make myself feel better, I tell myself, maybe, just maybe, Harper had this in his master plan all along. MAYBE the reason he chose such an arch-Conservative like Mr.jail-the-homeless-Flaherty is because he wanted to stick to the Liberals as much as possible, and knew that with a guy like Jimbo running finance, the fiscal conservatives in the party couldn't get TOO mad as we might always still hold out hope that Flaherty will emerge from his little cage and show his true, privatize-the-house-of-commons self. Maybe there is still hope. Or maybe i'm just grasping at straws.
This is certainly not a budget I hoped to see from Mr. Harper, but I'm not sure we should have been surprised. Does anyone else remember Harper saying something (and I'm paraphrasing here in a big way) about finally realizing that a country was like a huge ship and therefore it simply couldn't be turned all that quickly?
I think it's possible that Harper may govern like a Liberal for some time, perhaps even if he gets a majority. The changes will be gradual - we'll hardly notice them, but they'll significantly change the direction of the country over time.
That said, if Harper had done anything even remotely conservative in this budget, you know the "hidden agenda" crowd would be screaming about how much worse it would have been if he had a majority. Whether he's gradually steering a slow moving ship or just plain trying to get re-elected, I don't see how he had any choice but to refrain from any "scary" moves in this budget.
I think the whole "hidden agenda" thing is bizarre - we probably know more about Harper's actual views on most topics than we ever did about Chretien's or Martin's or Dion's - but it clearly exists and it could cost the Cons not only their majority, but possibly even the next election if they're not careful.
AC, normally I am a big fan of yours.
But not these last few days.
a) This is by no means a "Liberal" budget. Listen to Dion et al, and just try to imagine what their budget would look like right now were they in Harper's shoes.
I won't even get into their plan to spend $80 billion over 20 years (CD Howe Inst. report) almost entirely on hot air credits overseas.
b) Harper is fulfilling his promise on the fiscal imbalance...which I happen to think is a reality. Ottawa has been awash in dough for years, while most of the provincial governments have been sucking the hind teat trying to break even on delivering most of the services in this country for which they are responsible.
c) Harper whacked taxes pretty good last year. Expecting the same degree of slashing this year is, IMHO, a tad bit much.
d) I thought your comment tonight that we're better off with a Reform style conservative opposition was, frankly and myself being a past Reformer/CAer, silly. Things ever force the west down that road again, most westerners...myself included...will be opting for another alternative: Independence.
And believe me, if Harper actually loses to that collection of clowns and goofs across from him, that'll be on a helluva lot of minds out here.
e) Harper didn't bust his butt to get this far just to toss it all over archaic notions of ideological purity.
IMHO.
You need to remove political spin when you calculate these numbers:
1. Transfer of taxes to provinces is not spending by the feds; it is money given back to the governments that have responsibility/authority for areas such as health care and educations. The fed Liberals try to amass power beyond the federal government's constitutional mandate by taking taxes from the provinces taxpayers and putting centralist conditions on giving it back to the same taxpayer. This is how the Liberals put Canada on the brink of collapse during the Quebec referendum; they tried to use money to usurp power from Quebec, and every other province.
2. Cutting of taxes is not spending; in a free country the government does not own everything. Liberals believe that a tax cut is spending because they live a mindset of supreme government entitlement/control, not unlike communism. Their view is that the government should decide more than the individual, because the individual will just spend their money on popcorn and beer.
3. Interest payments on the debts accumulated by prior governments is not spending of the current government; it is spending of the government that ran up the debt. If you remove the interest payments caused by the Liberals, the Mulroney Conservatives decreased operational spending to a balanced operational budget for the first time since Trudeau's carefree spending. They put the economy back on track with free trade agreements and by changing the Canadian-penalizing manufacturing tax to the GST. The Liberals then balanced the books by dropping billions in provincial funding for critical areas such as health care and education.
Finally, Canada is a democracy - the majority did not vote conservative in the last election; a minority conservative government means that there is a majority of non-conservative, who all happen to be more liberal than conservative. Since a government is supposed to do what a majority tells it to do, why would you expect a conservative-leaning budget? In my view, this is more about competence than philosophy; most Canadians believe in the same goal - effective government services and increasing the wealth and well-being of all citizens. As a conservative I don't mind spending money on achieving this (in fact I voted for Trudeau before I understood this). The Liberal government's effectiveness on Kyoto is a very good example of incompetence; all talk and no action. In a way it doesn't matter what the Liberals say they will do, because they are not competent to do it anyway. This is why Mulroney is the most environmental friendly PM; even a modest level of funding can cause a great deal of benefit when put in competent hands. And don't even get me started on the gun registry, the unauditable CBC, etc...
Andrew seems to think that Harper has this miraculous ability to stand at the far right,
and call the rest of Canada over to him, whereupon they will all come running,
rather than meeting them in the middle and having a nice easy walk, realizing with each step of the way that things aren't so bad in conservative land,
notwithstanding the contempt shown for conservatism by the media elite crowd Andrew hangs out with.
Andrew, maybe it's time to stop blaming Harper for having to deal with the current political reality,
and start blaming you media elite buddies, for assisting in the statist, leftist, anti-conservative mindest that has hung over this country for too long.
Well said Biff, that's what I was trying to get at but you said it better than I could ever hope to.
Still waiting for AC or anyone else to offer a better way for Harper to get that illusive majority in an electoral system where Ontario and Quebec get to decide what the rest of the country wants.
What's the solution that will help Harper win the hearts and minds of Ontario and Quebec AC? Anonymous said that all we need is a national transit strategy, any other takers?
What you don't get, Sean, is that most people (Coyne included) could care less who is in the seat of government, we just care what they do. And just saying that this might give Harper a majority is not acceptable...this is a disgraceful budget from a fiscal conservative's point of view.
This false hope for the one budget that really cuts reminds me of the 1980s...
Biff, exactly right. That would be the most egregious tax-and-spend government ever!!! Or, at least the way AC is claiming it. Tax credits shouldn't be seen as spending. The Child Tax Benefit is of course spending.
springer, you and I usually agree on most topics but I'm with AC on this one.
It's not just the spending that bothers me. It's WHERE the spending is. Restoring the funding he cut to the Status of Women. WHY?!?!?!? Harper paid zero political price for cutting this. Why bring this back?
Funding daycare...WHY?!?!?! He won this battle. Why fight it again?
For God's sake, he was bragging to Jack Layton that this was a budget that past NDP leaders would have been proud to deliver. Who ever thought we would see that?
And the bribe to Quebec...how can you suggest that the fiscal imbalance is/was real when Charest immediately promises a tax cut with his new found wealth? Do you believe Flaherty when he says that's it, the provinces need never ask the feds for money again!?!?!? The provinces will ALWAYS ask for more. That's what they do. That's the system. One time capitulations don't fix the system...they reinforce it.
If the Liberals had delivered this "bribe Quebec with the rest of Canada's money" budget with Harper in opposition, he would have TRASHED this budget, and rightly so. What would YOUR reaction have been? I have a pretty good idea...
Oooeee, Biff! Did you ever zing me! I'm powerless before your razor-sharp reasoning.
But let me put you another case. Suppose the government took all of the income from half the population, and gave it all to the other half of the population, in the form of a tax credit. By your logic, that government would be a libertarian dream: both spending and taxes would be counted as zero.
Amazing what you can do with extreme hypotheticals, huh?
Oh, and "anonymous," if that's your real name: the figures quoted are for program spending. So your interest-costs objection is irrelevant.
Anonymous Wrote:
"Buzzwords like "aging population" and "knowledge economy" are nothing but cynical propaganda devices intended to reinforce people's fear of living without government nannies."
That's frankly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Aging populations do require more healthcare (hence healthcare spending), which in this country is provided by the government. I suppose Harper could try to slay that sacred cow but I wish him luck. Regardless, even in the US, they still fund a public health system (it's not all private) whose expenditures will grow along with an aging population.
If you don't like the term "knowledge economy", call it whatever you want. The fact is there are an astounding number of jobs going overseas to people with advanced degrees. If we don't invest so our schools and research institutes are churning out Canadian kids with advanced degrees and world-beating Canadian IP that will hopefully get commercialized, we're going to be left behind.
It's not that complicated, and it certainly isn't propaganda.
AC: I greatly appreciate all the work you've done this week. I'm glad someone in the Canadian media is saying these things!
We saw with the income trusts and now with the budget the lengths Conservative supporters will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable. In their eyes, Harper spending a boatload of money is the first step in cutting government spending! If the PM divorces his wife and proposed to Richard Simmons, you'd have Conservative supporters on here telling you how he's struck a blow against same-sex marriage.
Biff, we didn't expect him to stand at the far right nor did we (FiscCons) expect him to farm out writing of the budget to the NCC/CTF/Frontier Centre. What we also didn't expect -- and are arguing was a terrible mistake -- was to not have any sign at all of fiscal conservatism or restraint in this budget. Sure there are other strategies at play, but that did not have to mean there was no signal at all that the government feels program spending is out of control. ecoCar, carbon sequestration and hundreds of millions more for the "poor" farmers (rapidly becoming agro-welfare bums of Bombardier like proportions) are signs that vote-buying is the order of the day. And you don't buy votes, you rent them. Rent you never have to stop paying unless you are prepared to be evicted. troubling signs...
Anonymous wrote:
>>What you don't get, Sean, is that most people (Coyne included) could care less who is in the seat of government, we just care what they do. And just saying that this might give Harper a majority is not acceptable...this is a disgraceful budget from a fiscal conservative's point of view.<<
Are you quite certain that you actually live in Canada because most people in Alberta, for example, care a great deal whether or not anything with the word Liberal attached to it forms a national government. Perhaps you missed this. (I know, dismiss what I'm saying with a casual flick of the hand while grumbling "damned whining Albertans". You know ya wanna.) That's just one example.
The point I am making is that WHICHEVER party wants to govern, they have to win in Ontario and Quebec and historically, those to regions have been bought off in successive federal budgets and during election campaigns.
Here's a good column by someone other than AC who shares his disgust with the budget but also realizes that our political system is badly broken and that it's all about buying the vote rather than sound fiscal planning.
http://tinyurl.com/yvspno
John...
The comment to Layton is just political rhetoric, as in: Go ahead and vote against this, and then explain to middle class Canadians with families why you think they don't deserve a break on taxes.
I'm not naive enough to think provincial premiers (least of all Williams who makes his living out of bashing feds) will ever concede there's nothing left to bitch about. What Fleherty said is, as far as this government is concerned: We delivered, case closed, we're moving on now.
Remember that this equalization thing was worked out by an independent, third party, panel of experts...led by a former deputy minister from Alberta. Over the long haul, with per capita distribution built in, everyone gains.
Also remember that equalization is a fact of life in this country thanks to certain governments enshrining it constitutionally. I personally don't agree with it; it promotes mediocrity, and absolves people of taking full responsibility for the provincial governments they elect. I live in BC. Ten years of Dippers in Victoria reduced my province to a trainwreck, ultimately dependent on equalization (welfare) from the rest of Canada, none of whom were responsible for our collective stupidity.
I recall vividly an interview back in the late '60s with WAC Bennett: "Equalization? Ah, yes! That's where Bennett writes the cheques in BC and Smallwood cashes them in Newfoundland."
At a federal/provincial conference at that time, Bennett finally lost it and delivered a lecture on how equalization ultimately subsidized poor governments and that it would be divisive to the nation in the long run. Bennett, almost 40 years later, was a veritable prophet, eh?
Harper is now dealing with the realities of equalization. And the reality is, regardless of what he might personally think about it, the nation as a whole believes in it almost religiously. He bucks it, or even murmurs in his sleep to the contrary, he's committing political suicide.
I'm reminded of the axiom regarding the failure of socialism: The only people who want to share are those who don't have anything.
The fact of human nature is precisely why ideology and ten cents ultimately won't getcha a cup of coffee in political life.
I should mention...
After delivering his lecture, Bennett stormed out of the conference and came home.
Trudeau promptly labeled him a "bigot".
British Columbians, just about everyone of 'em, went ballistic. I cannot remember a time here when talk of separation was more rampant following that incident.
If ever just one political leader in this country was worthy of a statue, the obvious choice far as I'm concerned would be WAC Bennett, a visionary the likes of whom we'll probably never see again.
AC: But let me put you another case. Suppose the government took all of the income from half the population, and gave it all to the other half of the population, in the form of a tax credit. By your logic, that government would be a libertarian dream: both spending and taxes would be counted as zero.
But they would have to be refundable tax credits to achieve what you're trying to show. If they were non-refundable, as is the usual case, then the redistribution either would not happen (if you're saying one-half is taxed at 100%, and the other half at 0%), or wouldn't happen fully (assuming that you are taxing the upper half of income earners at 100%, while the lower half is taxed at some other rate). The distribution would only amount to the amount of tax payable of the entire lower half.
And lastly, there's no need for the snide comments. As host, you set the tone for all ...
Nova Scotia budget opts for the extra dough...
Quote: "The minority Conservative government justified opting into the revamped equalization formula by saying it needed the increased funding to avoid tax increases and program cuts.
In making the choice, provincial finance officials estimate the province could get an extra $79 million in equalization payments this fiscal year."
Us partisan hacks can't help but feeling let down when Andrew Coyne is doing his job! Sure, I would prefer it if he were cheering Harper on, but that's my unpaid job, not his. Besides, Chuckercanuck's 4th rule of politics is: anything that gets Andrew Coyne AND Jason Cherniak hopping mad is likely a political homerun.
But here's something I'd like to see from a pundit - and I'd bet Andrew Coyne is the only one who could manage this challenge:
next January, publish a budget as you think it should be. The only rule is that it has to be a budget that you think would pass the house and pass muster with the public.
I think it would be a really neat exercise and published earlier enough, could actually have an impact while the real budget was being crafted.
Global National reports latest Ipsos numbers...
CPC - 40%
Libs - 29%
Whoah, testy.
Lumping returning money to taxpayers as "spending" - which incidentally is also done with tax cuts,
is rediculous, and seemingly contrary to your anti-statist stance.
Your redistribution arguement is made by the left with tax cuts all the time. "Tax cuts are for the rich" and should be avoided.
Finally, why no real scrutiny of Dion?
Could it have something to do with your encouraging words about Dion early on, and a classic media like pre-determined story line phenomenah, whereby facts that fit the meme are sought out, but facts that don't are avoided like the plague?
Just wondering.
But back to a more concrete scenario:
tax credits to families,
Do you know what the average family with a few kids does with most of its disposable income?
They spend it.
Families are the drivers of our economy, spending their money on household goods, cars, furniture, clothing ect.
And here's the great thing about families,
they exist in every province, every city, and every town (I understand they even exist in Toronto - though that may just be a rumour).
So the tax credits Harper utilized, are about as far from from your example as one could imagine, Andrew.
And if Joe Scmoe in the neighborhood, who owns a store, doesn't have kids,
he'll still benefit, because the thousands of families that live around him will have more money to buy his stuff.
And don't even get me started on Joe Schmoe's employees, and thier families and so on and so on.
"And here's the great thing about families, they exist in every province, every city, and every town "
That razor-sharp reasoning strikes again.
"And don't even get me started on Joe Schmoe's employees, and thier families and so on and so on"
Please don't.
Sean,
uhm yes, we already heard the "razor sharp" sarcastic remark already.
Did you think it would have a bigger impact coming from you instead of Andrew?
Strategic Council latest polling on Quebec election also included a question about federal support.
1000 sampled.
BLOC - 36%
CPC - 29%
Libs - 21%
Ya think maybe Gilles is starting to sweat some bullets???
Easy to digest graphics that will enlighten the situation:
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2007/03/a_brief_history.html
Imagine critizing Mr. Coyne for attacking the budget - hey, every taxpayer in Canada has a right (because it's our money) to criticize the budget.
Why are we paying for truckers' lunches ($15 million) when first nations are short changed ($21 million)? Let them brown bag like others do to cut costs, or, let's feed those hungry kids instead.
I'm in the category that gets nothing (hey, I don't have kids and I'm not poor - I not rich either) and I get absolutely nothing from this budget and I'm supposed to by a trucker's lunch.
Give me a break!
Anon,
are you a Joe Schmoe (see my above comment) or an employee of Joe Schmoe.
At the end of the day most will benefit from the tax credits.
This post has been removed by the author.
Andrew, you ask "Suppose the government took all of the income from half the population, and gave it all to the other half of the population, in the form of a tax credit. By your logic, that government would be a libertarian dream: both spending and taxes would be counted as zero."
But you know that such is not what happened here. No one's taxes were raised. Tax 'reductions' were given to a substantial portion of the population (but not single guys like me; I should be upset I suppose but I'm not). The reason Dion isn't screaming "big spender" from the rooftops is that the difference between a tax cut and a tax expenditure, while a legitimate accounting distinction, doesn't play on main street.
Put in other terms, your big-spender statistics, while truism-wise statistically correct, equate a tax reduction for some with spending on a government social program. Is that particular statistic of highest relevance? In judging whether this was a conservative budget (albeit a soft one as Harper pursues his majority), isn't it more telling to note the move away from families with a stay-at-home parent having to subsidise families with two working parents?
This spending charts seems to show that when Conservatives governments are in power, national revenues increase, government spending on services goes up, and Canada ascends on the world stage.
Awesome.
KW, truly awesome graphs. I am a big fan of graphs myself.
Another criticism of Coyne - he is showing the average spending over the entirety of each government's term. Is this a meaningful statistic? Why did he choose this format? Oh I dunno, maybe because if you compare spending at the END of the Liberal regime to spending now, the result is not as dramatic as Mr. Coyne would have liked.
Thanks, copied the link myself.
Indeed, in cases like this, average values are misleading. The average of 49 and 51 is 50. Same as 0 and 100.
I'd be willing to guess that this format was chosen to place emphasis on a rather dubious arguement than anything else, which is sad actually.
It does speak well of the readership found here that no one seems to have taken the bait.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Harper has cost each and every Canadian taxpayer $1,000 to keep Quebec happy. If you have 3 kids you get 310 X 3 - what break is that? Huh?
I'm one of those who doesn't get a tax break and have been put out $1,000 more. Now if you have a mortgage and interest rates go up (which is likely will) it would cost on the average another $1,000 more = $2,000 more.
Tax break?
Joe Schmoe here. Biff, you are sooo right. Please, take more of my money and redistribute it to my more family-minded neighbors, I just can't get enough of these spinoff benefits. Apart from rolling around in it, I haven't got a clue what to do with the stuff anyways!