Thanks to our socialist views, lower taxes actually hurt the province. This is evident when you consider just how many people in BC utilize the gov't for everything from a paycheck, all the way to publicly funded childcare. Lower taxes work in a capitalist society because it's a much more selfish society compared to socialism.

The US is becoming more and more socialist (everytime a dem is elected), and that pisses off the old republican way of thinking.

Too bad higher taxes lead to inefficiencies in the market. When consumer and income taxes are high, people stop buying stuff they would have originally bought.

Oh, and people manage their money a LOT better than the government.

Public health care in US was a disaster. Putting in an extremely expensive social program RIGHT when the economy is in a recession a terrible choice. Spending needs to be cut, not increased.

Can't remember who's sig this was but it was great and very relevant to this thread:

Spending your way out of debt is like fucking for virginity.

So when is the right time to put in a social program? When things are recovering? When things are at their peak?

There is never a "right" time for social programs, but there is also never a "right" time to remove them either. Costs are costs, but having an adequate social safety net in place makes the ride infinitely smoother.

Yes, the way that the healthcare thing was done in the US was nightmarish, but this isn't the US, is it.
Posted via RS Mobile

It's cool, you guys are just talkin economics here. Not a bad discussion, even with the arguing.

Whoever wines and dines on government money should be shot. We pay them to work, not take our money and 6 lackies and go for a 2 week trip to some exotic place for a "business conference".

Anyways that's off point, but Gordo was done from the onset of Bill the No HST premier's campaign.

My 1 wish if they include teh taxes into the meals/items we buy like in London UK. it's so much simplier and way more palatable. EVEN if it's a 17.5% tax.

can i charge $10 for a crumb of bread served on a paper napkin?

You sound like you watch a lot of Fox News.

Universal Health Care in itself will reduce the US Deficit in the long term. What better time would there have been to pass the legislation? No prior president has ever been able to pass any type of real Health Care Bill. Obama did what he ran on, and that was changing the Health Care system. You can blame it on the Republicans, and in part Paper Suit Democrats in the bill not going all the way to introducing a Universal Health Care Plan. That is the most unforunate thing of that whole fiasco.

Last time I checked, you can't spend your way out of a deficit.

You DO know that the money from health care doesn't grow out of trees right? The money has to come from somewhere.

You're essentially forcing healthy adults to spend money on healthcare they probably won't need. I don't want to seem cruel, but a LOT of the money will be used on the elderly/very sick, who aren't very productive towards the economy. You're taking money that could have went to other more productive sectors (education, banking, manufacturing, retails) into one that doesn't provide much benefit in a FINANCIAL sense. Most healthy adults will save more paying out of their own pocket than paying into a health care program they MAY or MAY NOT use.

Plus, government-run programs usually not very efficient. It takes a long time to get things done... lots of legal fees, bureaucratic bungling, "meetings", policy advisers, lobbyists, opposition, siphoning and misuse of funds, blah blah blah.

Please tell me how it will reduce the deficit, not what Obama claimed it would do in his presidential speech.

Does healthcare make moral sense? Yes. Does it make fiscal sense? No.

BTW, I like Obama as a president. I just don't agree with some of his policies.

Absolutely not. But you didn't open a restaurant to sell a crumb of bread on a napkin. nor am I suggesting that people should be paid to do nothing--quite the contrary. I find the inefficiencies of government even more disturbing than most conservatives because I believe that Government SHOULD be there to help people and take care of them; I feel that they are one of the most important parts of society, and should not in fact be eliminated.

Conservatives who want smaller government are "shocked and appalled at the waste of the government" and want to axe it all because they think that big government is the root of all evil. I am shocked and appalled by the waste of government because it is there to serve the people.


There are a lot of businesses downtown who price their goods without tax to make a round number with tax; Coffeeshops, pizza places, small restaurants and the like. When the HST came in, many of them adjusted their prices UP to make the prices round again. In other words, an item that was previously $2 before the HST then became $2.50 with HST because the owner wanted to keep it a round number.

This is the kind of thing I mean by 'pay increases tied to performance'. This is one of the ways the HST is making that type of business money--incremental price increases with reduced business costs due to tax credits.

why don't we be a little more open-minded and Liberal about our governments spending habits?

if managers in big businesses take expensive trips on company money, why can't managers of a country?

managing a part of the country aint no charity drive. you get what you pay for and if you pay a politician $65k/yr with the standard 2 week vacations and no perks, you'll get joe-blow running the show. raise the stakes to $239k/yr with all expense paid trips and crazy per diems, then you'll filter out all the joe-blows and keep the truly exceptional ones at bay. of course, even at $239k/yr, you're still hiring a human-being whose prone to slipping with mistakes like drinking and driving while on vacation

people love to point their misery at something else, and with a political system like ours, not everyone can be pleased. anything that happens in politics will piss one person off or another.

political discussions always turn into arguments, you guys are all wasting your breath.

Civil Servant.

You go in it to make a difference. Make sacrifices to right the wrongs and work endless hours in order to do this. If all politicians did this instead of being in it for guaranteed pensions, perks, fame, glory, etc, it would truly be an honourable profession.

As it is now, even the world's oldest profession has more respect.


Only during elections are these people humble. We pay these people's wages. If and when they represent the people and put the people's interest ahead of their own agendas should we give them respect.

Sure you can - ever heard of John Keynes? What about Frank Roosevelt? Or about our own Stephen Harper with Canada's Economic Action plan?

You can talk about money supply, deficits, and interest rates all you want - it's still accepted theory that you have to sometimes spend public money to promote economic growth. In good times, governments should actually raise taxes (which no government actually does.)

Wow. You might as well get rid of all the mentally challenged, the disabled, the elderly, the uneducated, etc. with that line of thinking.

The health care system in the US is still a victim of lobbyists and the misuse of funds. Ever get into an accident down there? If you don't have insurance, you'll literally go bankrupt after any sort of operation.

Public systems are no doubt subject to abuse, but there are ways of making it more efficient without making the system private. We should actually emphasize health care prevention, but you know, promoting exercise and taxing unhealthy foods are politically difficult. I'm going on here...

So by your theory, because I'm a healthy late-20's adult male who only goes to the doctor and dentist for checkups, I should stop paying into my company's health care plan because it's a waste of money?

Health care is akin to car insurance; we pay for it every paycheque/month/year in the hopes that we don't need it. However, should the situation arise where you find your car burning down (or that you've suddenly developed a pulmonary edema), it's nice to know that you don't have to suddenly fork out your entire life savings to replace it (or sell your house to pay for the surgery).

Yes, you may have to pay a little more now but, like insurance, it's there just in case.

Yeah, but we never do. We just complain every time a news headline comes out because it's easy. Even if they do work hard and do a good job, who's gonna know? It's not like the media digs this stuff up because it sells.

wwow did anyone read the province today about campbells pension plan + incentives?

dude still fucking us over after he quit

As much as I dislike the guy, he's absolutely entitled to his pension.

Mayor of Surrey gets a lot of respect (from what I hear). I give credit where credit is due and I think a lot of other people do as well.

Anyway..............

So off off topic, but...

It's a major problem in western economies, of not managing them during good times and bad.

Here is why we get screwed(in my opinion)

Having an over achieving economy is just as bad as an under achieving economy.

In late 90's...the US economy is cooking hot. Dot coms are making huge amounts of coin, and the rest of the economy is running along with it. Times are good.

Incrementally, the interest rates and rates of taxation should be increased to slow the economy somewhat. Build a reserve of funding for the inevitable, bubble burst!

Economy slows.

Yes, Bush cuts the taxes, which should have been great, but they were never raised before. Therein lies the problem of why his rip off of Reagan didn't work.

Fast forward a couple of years...housing market is booming. Great for economic growth(because we all know that in our fiscal system, loans generate "new" money for the economy) And it dies.

The stimulus was all designed to re-inflate the bubble. Even saving GM was designed to go back to the glory days where they employed the mid-west and everything was good. Everyone wants the good times to go forever.

Now you have Tea Party rhetoric of cutting gov't spending, balancing the budget and lowering taxes. Can't have it all. You can't. You can cut gov't programs if you want, and in the US, I think they could stand to lose entire departments...but that isn't going to do much for the employment problem. Your tax rate is already too low, as evidenced by the education system thats fucked and many programs and infrastructure thats underfunded...not to mention social security thats severely underfunded, as that fund has been raped so many times to cook the books(Thanks Bill! If anyone doesn't know, his so-called balanced budget was at the expense of social security)

Thankfully Canada has been smarter. Paul Martin, in my opinion was one of the greatest Prime Ministers that Canada has had in recent years. His work under Chretien was fantastic. They made the hard calls. They cut spending, and increased taxes and balanced the books. Then they refunded to a rate that could be sustained.

Gordon Campbell on a provincial level did the exact same thing, and his true legacy is that people saw that it was good. His election in 2001? was based in part on voting the NDP out, but he made no promises of spending and new things for the people, we knew that he was going to cut the shit out of the gov't spending and make the province work, and he did. The fact that he was re-elected shows that we recognized it needed to happen.

That is the best thing he did for the province.

yes people are happy that he quits only because the way he brings the news to the people was......let's say not very diplomatic.

but he ran the government provincial like it's a multibiliion corporation, and that is what we truly needed. That has always worked and just look at how well we did during the great depression. Many people are too fixated on a few smaller aspects that happened to them or to ones they loved and think that the gov't screwed them over....If only the policies were released in a more poor-people-friendly way.

Gordo has been doing great as a business man, too bad many don't like businessmen.

It's unfortunate that the majority of the haters failed in life and then decide that it's someone high up at fault...

Well, Campbell was running one of the largest organizations in the country which is akin to being a top-end CEO. No one cries foul when CEOs receive large severances, stock options, etc.

A CEO working at a big-5 bank in this country makes in the neighbourhood of around 2-5 million year, plus bonuses and other incentives. Campbell probably made a salary in the low 200K range (it was 186K in 2007). So, do you value a bank manager's work more than a government's?

If you looked into the facts on average personal debt, average family debt, and average business debt in either Canada or the US, you'd realize just how silly this statement is. People do not manage their money well. That's why the Brick is so successful even though they'll give you a year of interest free payments. Even though it's hugely beneficial to their bottom line to pay down the debt, people rarely do it during the interest free period.

not picking on you, but lemme get this straight. you think that just because businesses can raise prices anytime they want without a valid reason, then workers should be entitled to automatic raises without it being tied to performance?

honestly, this is the exact reason what is wrong with some people in society. You want more money w/o any increase in performance? Go start you own fucking business then. Then you can charge any price you want.

You don't like your current job and it's pay and benefits? Get another fucking job then. Don't go on strikes, hold the public hostage and expect free handouts for doing jack just because you're not qualified for another job.

On AVERAGE, insurance will be a net loss.

The economy does not look at individual cases, it looks at people as a GROUP.

Like I said, you have to be losing money for the insurance companies to make money.

For MOST people, they will never use up the insurance they pay for in their lives.

You seriously think the Canadian Economic Action plan saved the economy? MANY of Roosevelt's policies got shot down in court, the US economy would have rebounded regardless of whether he was in power or not.

I also forgot to mention that a large percentage of the Canadian Economic Action plan funding went to... *surprise* ridings with Conservative bases.

Why are you suddently getting into eugenics? All I said was that for improving the economy, investing in public health care is an inefficient use of resources.

I like the concept of universal healthcare. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is not a good way to rebound from a recession.

Most Americans seem to understand this, with the economy taking precedence over national healthcare. Public healthcare is good when you're injured or sick, but it won't feed your family and pay the bills.

Yes... because business debt = government debt. Businesses are run by individuals, governments are run by an elected group of individuals representing various interests.

You can bet that businesses as a whole are damn more efficient than governments.