babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » A New Era of Higher Paycheques

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A New Era of Higher Paycheques
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 27 November 2001 09:17 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
The legacy of Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution has not confined itself to the provincial borderes of Ontario, it has spread itself across the country, right straight across.

In a June 2001 policy release by the British Columbia Liberal government, the paper named "A New Era of Higher Paycheques" uses Ontario's tax cuts as an example of higher provincial revenues after substantial tax cuts.

quote:
"Provinces like Ontario have proven that lower personal income tax rates lead to higher revenue – not less. Ontario cut its income tax rate by 20 points since 1996, and personal income tax revenue has gone up by over $3.3 billion a year." A New Era of Higher Paycheques

While Premier Campbell was on the right track, he unfortunately forgot the key element when making tax cuts: you must stay within a balanced budget framework.

For those Ontarians who lived here during the Ontario Public Service Employe's strike in 1996, we all know that Premier Harris cut over 20,000 public service employees off the payroll. Mr. Campbell just realized this.

In a news release today, British Columbian public service employee unions are arming the rhetoric war machine and the battle is about to begin. Why you ask? The British Columbia government plans to cut up to 11,550 public sector jobs. B.C. labour head condemns Liberals

Overbloated bureaucracies and unionized public service employees have taken their toll on every province in this country. British Columbians will now get their experience of unionized public service employee unrest.

Take heart British Columbians, your government is doing the right thing. Stand by your Premier, the man you elected!

John I. Fleming

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 27 November 2001 09:50 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This fairy tale brought to you courtesy of The Brothers Grimm.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 27 November 2001 10:11 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Mike Harris also 'forgot' to 'stay within a balanced budget framework' when he announced he was going ahead with the latest round of tax cuts. Thus we have a 5% cut to already-strapped operating budgets across the board, or a projected deficit of five billion dollars.

As a fiscally-conservative voter myself, I am completely and totally disgusted.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 27 November 2001 10:45 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Lard Tunderun Jeezus wrote:

quote:
" Actually, Mike Harris also 'forgot' to 'stay within a balanced budget framework' when he announced he was going ahead with the latest round of tax cuts. Thus we have a 5% cut to already-strapped operating budgets across the board, or a projected deficit of five billion dollars.

That is exactly what 'staying within a balanced budget framework' means.

You make sure you do not spend (tax cuts, deficits) more than what you are going to take in (provincial revenues). If there is going to be a deficit, and they remain on the path of revitalizing the economy through tax cuts, you must slow spending or use dollars that are not currently being used. Currently there is hundreds of millions in The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund that is not being used. Use it and when times get better, put it back.

We have heard as of yeasterday that the American economy is indeed in a reccession since March, 2001. (as if we didn't already know this) I was asked the question, "do you believe that Canada will experience a serious downturn". I said no. My rational was that if we maintain low tax rates here in Ontario, in Alberta and British Columbia (the three provinces that are the only ones who contribute to the Equalization Payments that go to the other 10 jurisdictions) we will come out of a downturn very rapidly.

The only way I can be proven correct is to wait and see. Therefore there is no need to debte this comment.

quote:
"As a fiscally-conservative voter myself, I am completely and totally disgusted.

So am I and that is exactly why I support British Columbia's move and the decision in Ontario to kick start our business sector complimented with personal income tax cuts to the low and middle income earners.

John I. Fleming

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 27 November 2001 11:46 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why isn't there a smiley conveying a 'slow, sad bewildered shaking of the head'?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 27 November 2001 11:47 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Paging Michelle!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 27 November 2001 01:44 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, everybody! When we're done praising Mike Harris, why don't we get our baseball bats and go beat the poor and workers! When we're done that, then we can waste our money on war machines and authoritarian "security" initiatives! Hey, maybe there'll be enough time left it the day so that we can rent a bulldozer, and get rid of those pesky, expensive hospitals and public shools!
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 12:54 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. Fleming: I don't think you seem to have realized that StatsCan tells us that BC has the smallest number of government workers per capita second only to Alberta.

Check It.

British Columbia as of 2000 had 89700 government workers vs Alberta's 61900.

Divvy that by their respective populations and you pop out these numbers:

89700 / 4058800 (BC) = 0.0221 government workers per capita

61900 / 3009200 (AB) = 0.0205 government workers per capita

Inverting those two fractions gives the number of people served by each government worker.

"Bloated" bureacracy, Mr Fleming?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 01:42 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Dr Conway wrote:

quote:
"Bloated" bureacracy, Mr Fleming?

Yes, bloated bureaucracy. Using your figures for every civil servent to a citizen of the province respectively, that makes 1:49 (Alberta), and 1:45 (British Columbia). I trust your figures are correct and I am not even going to look them up.

For every 49 civilians, there is one civil servent in Alberta, and 45 in British Columbia. We are not talking about class sizes here, we are discussing civil servents. In my opinion, if we are to have any civil servents what-so-ever, those figures should be doubled! It should be 1 for every 100. Just my opinion. It is a well known documented fact that the civil service sector are by far less productive thamn the private sector. The private sector does ore with less. They also do it better.

Public service unionized employees had better smarten up. The trough is empty.

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2001 01:56 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"It's a well-known documented fact" but I sure don't see no numbers, pal.

Incidentally, economics tells us that manufacturing has higher productivity than services. Well guess what, government's almost all services.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 28 November 2001 02:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with the protector of the rich. Let's get rid of all the public servants. All of them. I suggest we start with the military, move on to the cops, and then firefighters, paramedics and all those other leaches.

Cutting red tape and regulation only killed how many in Walkerton?

But is was good for the factory farmers.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 November 2001 02:17 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And as approximately one-quarter of the population is of school age, your '1 for every 100' ratio of civil servants to population basically only provides for teachers, with a class of 25 each.

Who's going to police your streets, Mr. Fleming?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 02:32 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut wrote:

quote:
"Cutting red tape and regulation only killed how many in Walkerton?

I don't know, why don't you ask Stan and Frank Koebel. That [b]IS{/b] who Ontarians blame. Or you could go to the NDP caucus of 1992 who passed legislation to download water testing on to the municipalities and closed 5 of their water testing plants. This of course allowed the municipalities to contract out water testing.

Why don't you go and ask them people first before you ask me, hum?

John I. Fleming


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 02:45 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Lard Tunderin' Jeesus wrote:

quote:
And as approximately one-quarter of the population is of school age, your '1 for every 100' ratio of civil servants to population basically only provides for teachers, with a class of 25 each. Who's going to police your streets, Mr. Fleming?

Using Dr Conway's figures that there are 89,700 (Provincial) government workers in British Columbia as of 2000 I would like to know if that includes police union associations.

You see, here in Ontario, public employees have their own union and so do the police. Furthermore, the province has no say over local municipal police officers, only the OPP. Last time I looked, the province had no authority over the hiring practices of the Sault Ste. Marie police force based on fiscal feasibility.

Now correct me if I am wrong, there are only two provinces in this country that have provincial police. That would be Ontatio and Quebec.

So what is your point? Humm? Nice try.

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 November 2001 10:43 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Disingenuous, Mr. Fleming....tend to your sick? Plow your highways?

The point was, you did not justify your target ratio. What do you think is the proper role of provincial government? Or any government, for that matter.

It seems to me that you are not a conservative in the sense of the word that I respect. A conservative in the Bill Davis tradition respects our institutions and the role of government - unlike the common rape & pillage right-wing revolutionaries found in the Harris inner circle.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
John I. Fleming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1846

posted 28 November 2001 11:04 AM      Profile for John I. Fleming        Edit/Delete Post
Lard Tunderin' Jeesus wrote:

quote:
Disingenuous, Mr. Fleming....tend to your sick? Plow your highways?
The point was, you did not justify your target ratio. What do you think is the proper role of provincial government? Or any government, for that matter.

It seems to me that you are not a conservative in the sense of the word that I respect. A conservative in the Bill Davis tradition respects our institutions and the role of government - unlike the common rape & pillage right-wing revolutionaries found in the Harris inner circle.


You tried to put police services into the equation. Next thing I know it we will be putting the military in the public service employees union!

What is the province responsible for? Everything they already do. Infrastructure.

Although once again I will repeat, the public service sector should be at a ratio of approximately 100:1. Currently in the example that the good Doctor gave, they stand at 49:1 and 45:1. I said, and I'll repeat IT again, double those figures.

John I. Fleming

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: John I. Fleming ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 November 2001 11:23 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I cited policing because that tends to be an obsession for those of your ilk, Mr Fleming. So forget the provincial police, that's Ontario - where you and I both reside. What about the courts and jails? Are you up to providing them with manpower?

I note you've studiously avoided both my point and my questions. Do try to participate, Mr. Fleming. These are discussion boards, not walls for your cyber-graffiti.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 November 2001 12:32 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ignore me... I have nothing relevant to add to this discussion.

From the Globe & Mail, "BC shovels Clark's fiscal snow job", Nov. 27, by Paul Sullivan.

Damn the Globe, sorry for the direct reprint:

[categorizing the Clark government to a banana republic...]

After six months, the Campbell Liberals are almost as easy to categorize: They look to be running the Left Coast version of the Klein and Harris regimes. First, there's the whopping $1.5-billion tax cut, followed a few months later by the whopping civil-service cut -- last week, the government announced it would eliminate as many as 11,500 jobs, one-third of its work force over the next three years.

And lately, the Premier has been as ubiquitous as an infomercial for hair removal, announcing that the government is "open for business." Speaking to businessmen from Burnaby to Hong Kong, he pledges to slash by a third (magic number?) the 400,000-plus regulations choking the B.C. economy, aims to achieve treaty "certainty" with B.C.'s aboriginal leaders, and plans to revoke the corporate capital tax imposed by the NDP's Mike Harcourt back in 1992, when it seemed like a good idea to "make the rich pay" without thinking too much about the implications.

The difference is that the Alberta and Ontario governments downsized when the economy was strong. Now, in the words of the immortal Booker T. Jones, if it wasn't for bad luck, Gordon Campbell wouldn't have no luck at all.

In the six months since he's taken office, B.C. has been in a recession. The Americans' 30-per-cent tariff on B.C.'s lumber products hasn't helped, nor has Sept. 11's blow to the province's other major industry, tourism. All this adds up to a phenomenon more common to New Democrats than neo-conservatives: a whopping deficit, currently estimated at $2-billion and rising.

Still, nothing has dampened Mr. Campbell's confidence, determination or enthusiasm. Blessed with the largest electoral mandate of any provincial government since Frank McKenna's full house in New Brunswick, he has an opportunity to change the rules in B.C. When Bill Bennett tried to downsize the provincial government back in 1983, organized labour rebelled, treating the rest of Canada to the spectacle of huge rallies and a general strike. So far, in the wake of last week's job cuts, labour has only grumbled ominously.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say British Columbians have grown tired of politics as a blood sport and are now wearily, warily, prepared to see if Gordon Campbell and his pro-business regime can restore B.C.'s battered economy.

To listen to him tell it, the battle's as good as won -- on Thursday, the same day his Finance Minister revised his economic forecast down and his deficit up, the Premier told his technology council that the economy will turn around as early as the second quarter of 2002.

This government's unique characteristic may be foolish enthusiasm in the face of intractable reality. The snowflake turns into a snow job. But in a place that has been the bad-news capital of Canada for a decade, we can be forgiven for falling for a little optimism, even if we do have to shovel it.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 30 November 2001 01:36 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of fiscal snowjobs....

quote:
I am also concerned that the government's approach to expenditure accounting in the case of health-care expenditures is inconsistent with its approach to accounting for its health-care revenues received from the federal government. In the latter approach, supplemental Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) grants that the province receives are being deferred and recognized as provincial income in the fiscal years to which they relate. In my view, the province's multi-year health-care expenditures should also be recognized in the fiscal years to which they relate.

In other words, the Auditor General has concerns with monies being budgeted and announced in current fiscal years, then left in the bank for projects that may or may not ever go ahead. Much of our 'increased' health care spending consists of such ethereal money.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca