You're missing the point. Driving us headfirst into debt is exactly what needs to be done so that Gordon Campbell can dismantle the last of our social programs with a "legitimate" albeit manufactured excuse. Wait for it. 

Liberal or NDP, it wouldn't matter as far as debt goes. They are both in a sorry state, trying to get us to believe they are like Mother Teresa, and will solve every problem under the sun. Each responds to the special interest groups that support it. We are all victims of the Mother of all fallacies - that government can solve problems by spending money.  

Greece barely got its facilities built on time and was in trouble financially before the Olympics. We're in for a rough ride after the Owe-limp-ics and it will be mainly due to the $2 billion spent on the RAV Line. TransLink is a bottomless pit which we cannot afford and the sooner we dismantle it the better! 

"According to a Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives study by Lars Osberg: "Between 1992 and 2004, the average taxable income of the top 0.1 percent of families rose from $1,270,000 to $2,650,000 (in 2007 dollars)." By 2008, the average income of the top 0.1 percent had risen a further $710,000 -- reaching a total of $3,360,000.

In terms of accumulated wealth, the picture is even more stark. The median net worth of the wealthiest ten percent of Canadian families increased 35 percent between 1984-1999. They gained a further 65 percent from 1999-2005, while the wealth of the bottom 50 percent of Canadians saw no gains since 1984.

Much of this staggering wealth comes as a result of a tax system that has been getting less progressive since the 1970s -- particularly since 2000. In the days of nation-building, Canada had a tax system that was amongst the most progressive anywhere. According to a 1995 article by Roger Smith, "In 1949, PIT [personal income tax] rates ranged from 15 to 84 percent and there were 17 brackets. In 1994, the range was 26.35 to 46.4 percent and there were 3 brackets." In 2009, there were four federal brackets: 15 percent, 22 percent, 26 percent, and 29 percent on an income over $126,264.

Throughout the ten year period of huge tax cuts, both personal and corporate ($100 billion over five years by Paul Martin -- and a further $100 billion, including GST, by the Harper government) there has been an aggressive rejection of any criticism of this gutting of the federal purse. Anyone talking about tax increases would expect to be immediately attacked and ridiculed."

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/02/21/DobbinRichTaxes/ 

Can't pay your debt off... no problem, we have a program set up so you can work it off.
Get ready for one world government - party hard these Olympics because it's the last party we will ever see.
Slavery through taxation and debt coming soon to a world near you...  

"The Rich and the Rest of Us, released last week by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, confirms what many low- and middle-income Canadians have felt for years as they work harder and longer than ever just to get by.

The feeling is – and facts bear it out – that wealthy Canadians are getting richer at a rate much faster than those in the middle or at the bottom.

Indeed, as the study discovered, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown considerably over the last 10 years, even though the poorest Canadians have seen their family incomes rise, but nowhere near as fast as those in the top 10 per cent of income earners. And those in the middle have also seen the gap widen between themselves and the rich."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/187764 

According to the Bank of Canada Act, provinces have the right to borrow at 0% from the Bank of Canada.

We could borrow enough from the BoC to pay off our high interest debts to private banks and hedge funds, so we could stop paying interest. Yes, I hear the naysayers already; "But that would create inflation!"

Indeed it would, and to offset it we just increase the reserve requirements of private banks.

"But I trade bonds in the international debt market, that's how I make my living!" What a shame, you might have to learn how to do something useful instead of shuffling around debt money.

Federal and all provincial debt combined, we Canadians pay $160 million in interest every day. That's $2000 PER SECOND. As you can see the solution is relatively simple, but most people aren't aware of the history of the Bank of Canada. Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King changed the Bank of Canada from a private company to a crown corporation in the 1930's.

We own it, let's use it! 

Currently BC's total debt is $32B or so. Because of slick Neocon accounting processes the additional $75B in BCHydro's Pirate Power purchases is kept off the books. Another $10B in other 3P's like the Abbotsford hospital is also off the books.

BCHydro is buying this low value, intermittent undependable power at the premium price of 12 cents a kwh, selling it for two to four cents during the day and it appears has to actually pay California to take the power at night because of US windpower loads.

Both Areva and AECL recently made a bid to supply Ontario with high value baseload power for sixty years at 1.5 cents a kwh 12% of what the Gordo is paying his stockbroker friends in the Pirate Power industry. With nuclear plants already on the go in Alberta, BC could have contracted for this power if we are too stupid to build it here.

The compliant and uneducated media both mainstream and alternative refuses to report on this financial disaster, more than doubling our power rates in the next few years, effectively privatizing then bankrupting BCHydro.
seth 

Feel like your working more for less? You are.

Young earn less than parents did: Census

"Young people entering the job market today earn less money than their parents did a generation ago, according to new census data released Thursday by Statistics Canada.

In fact, it's a trend that began a quarter century ago and doesn't appear to be slowing down – especially for young men entering the workforce.

Across all age groups, median salaries for full-time workers have changed little in 25 years. Workers today make, on average, a mere $53 more than they did in 1980, when adjusted for inflation, according to the census.

That stagnation mainly afflicted the middle class. The top earners in Canada saw their wages increase 16.4 per cent since 1980, while the bottom rung saw a 20-per-cent decrease.

For the 25- to 29-year-old group, it's also a story of decreasing fortunes.

In 1980, median earnings for full-time male workers in that age group – the time when people are generally starting their careers – were the equivalent of $43,767 in 2005 wages. By the year 2000, they dipped to $38,110 and in 2005 they stood at $37,680."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/Census/article/420331

 

Had your organization been more forthright in criticising the BC Liberals when they deficit financed tax cuts, I might be more than willing to accept your "Liberal and NDP are just as bad arguments".

Except the CTF couldnt have kept their mouths shut tighter.

When the CTF learns to criticise fiscal policy independent of whether or not they agree with it, you will find many fiscal centrists like myself a little more willing to see you as credible and independent.

If you truly believe that "we are all victims of the Mother of all fallacies - that government can solve problems by spending money" then deficit financed tax cuts should be just as poisonous to you, because at the end of the day, its the government borrowing (spending) to solve economic problems (providing domestic liquidity, which never was, or has been, BC's problem).

I note that the CTF never refers to a deficit produced by tax cuts in excess of spending commitments as being a "bill for future generations".

Why is that Maureen ?
 

A couple more complaints.

It is intellectually dishonest hyperbole to suggest that BC's total debt load is even close to that of Greece. If we hit the Liberals projected ceiling before the next elections, we will still be under %50 debt to GDP, which is a far cry from Greece's current % 113 debt to GDP ratio.

"British Columbia’s taxpayers should take note because what is happening in Greece gives us a glimpse of the threats posed by debt here in B.C"

Do you actually stand behind this position you have taken in the first paragrpah of this article ? Its equivalent to saying a punch in the face gives you an insight into being on the receiving end of a Tomahawk cruise missle.

Furthermore, your use of nominal debt numbers is also intellectually dishonest, and is what I would expect from a first year Economics student that didnt know any better. Expressed nominally, debt is meaningless as a statistic. Yes, $ 40 billion sounds like a lot, but its entirely different from a financial management perspective if the GDP of the borrower is $ 250 billion as opposed, to say, $ 20 billion.

Either you know better, and are writing an article that you know is misleading to support your predetermined position, or you dont know any better, and have no business engaging the public in a serious discussion about public finance when you really dont know any better, and as such are doing nothing but lowering the quality of debate and public knowledge to your own benefit.

So which is it ? Intransigence or incompetence ?

 

Listen up - Deficit financed tax cuts is an oxymoron. Money belongs to the people who earn it, not government.

The government is financing its spending with debt, so the tax cuts made earlier are unsustainable, no argument there.  

Listen up some more - hiding behind the debt to GDP ratio is a tactic used by government to create the illusion of debt affordability. By 2013, the BC debt will be approaching $60 billion, almost double its 2006 level. If we want to know what happens to a country when it accumulates debt, we can look to Greece for an example.  

Maureen wrote (in a sad attempt at intellectual engagement)

"Listen up some more - hiding behind the debt to GDP ratio is a tactic used by government to create the illusion of debt affordability"

No, its proper financial management procedure for those without a partisan axe to grind or position to make that cant be made within the cofines of proper professional financial management.

Using nominal statistics is useless unless the writer - you - is trying to mislead people.

Is 1% of X a lot ? We dont know until we know what X is.

But I am just a public sector accountant, so what the hell could I possibly know ? Or the OECD for that matter. Or bond markets. Or the IMF. Or the UN. Or institutional investors. Or currency markets. Or the Public Sector Accounting Board.

What professional or international bodies agree with your position regarding debt affordability Maureen ?

It is people like you, and in many cases your organization, that continually dumb down the discussion of public financial management for your own partisan purposes, and its a sad commentary on your own abilities that you resort to miseading the general public as opposed to refining yoru own arguments.

Maureen Bader and the CTF or the international accounting and financial community ? I know who I place my faith in. 

Maureen Bader wrote

"Listen up - Deficit financed tax cuts is an oxymoron. Money belongs to the people who earn it, not government."

Wow, totally off point. Not that I ever claimed anything to the contrary. I guess inventing straw men is easier than answering a simple, yet likely uncomfortable question about your and your organization's objectivity.

Why dont you just explain why your organization doesnt have a problem with this approach, but does when spending exceeds revenues. Do you care about proper debt managment, or ideology ? Do you need to be reminded that they arent the same thing ?

The effect on the reporting entitie's debt is the same. A fact not lost on professional economists and public sector accountants worldwide, but apparently you and the CTF.

When a goverment cuts revenues quicker, or deeper than spending, then it is deficit financing tax cuts - borrowing to cover the difference between revenue and expenditures going forward.

You may call it an oxymoron all you want (and given your lack of technicial arguments made in defence of your position, I would focus on the last five letters of the word), but if a government puts itself in a position to incur deficits because it chooses to forego revenues, then it is borrowing to fill a revenue gap created by reducing taxes, hence, a deficit financed tax cut.

Again, to be crystal clear, the taxes returned belong to the people who earn the income that is taxed, and that isnt in disgreement by anyone, though you seem to think it is.

So exactly who do you think is paying the debt incurred by reducing revenues quicker than expenditures ? Some other people that didnt earn the income they are taxed on ? The debt paydown fairies ?

Finally, if the proprotional benefit received by the reduction in revenues is not equivalent, it means that those that received the lowest proportional benefit will be paying a higher proportion of the debt from the incurred deficit going forward. (Note-this assessment is independent of nominal tax rates, so while the BC Liberals skewed the benefit towards the upper tax brackets, it doesnt matter in which bracket the benefit is skewed. The analysis holds no matter which bracket gets a disproportionate share of the benefit, upper or lower)

So some of the people that the money belongs to receive a proportionally higher benefit from the initial incurring of the deficit, and then the same people pay a proportionally lower cost of the debt going forward.

Government, through their own policy, redistributes wealth by cutting taxes disproportionately for some taxpayers by incurring debt supported by all taxpayers.

Sounds like socialism to me, Maureen, and it appears that you dont have a problem with it provided its consistent with your own world view, economic practices and professional public sector financial managment be damned. 

Listen up, my dear anonymous friend, whose salary could be at risk with a return to accountable government. As the B.C. government itself learned, the debt to GDP ratio is only a good propaganda tool when GDP is growing faster than debt.

The road to fiscal crisis runs in the same direction as the road to hell - paved with good intentions. If we want to return to financial health, spending has to come down. Fiddling with figures won't help restore the economy to health.
 

"Maureen Bader wrote"

"Listen up, my dear anonymous friend, whose salary could be at risk with a return to accountable government"

No, unless you want provincial revenues to fall because audits arent being conducted of questionable accounting and investment practices in the financial industry. The fact that parts of the public sector play an integral part in providing a stable legal environment in a market economy for consumers and investors was not in the front of your mind when you decided to take an uninformed cheap shot at the public sector.

It does, however, speak to your own prejudices on the matter.

Yes, I am anonymous - my job requires it of me, posting under my name would likely lead to me losing my job, per my restrictive contract. You arent, you are a paid spokesperson for a private political lobby organization, hence, a public figure, so get over it - its your job.

You dont want to be President, dont cry about having to wear a suit. If I shouted out a question at a public forum, you wouldnt know who I was either.

"As the B.C. government itself learned, the debt to GDP ratio is only a good propaganda tool when GDP is growing faster than debt"

How a government spins its record is irrelevant to my points.

Not to mention that all things being equal, manging your debt to grow small than your GDP is a perfectly legitimate public sector financial managment tool to reduce total debt to GDP, whether you and your PR background agree with it or not.

"The road to fiscal crisis runs in the same direction as the road to hell - paved with good intentions"

Is this a technical argument or a slogan ? Is this the best you can do ?

"If we want to return to financial health, spending has to come down"

That is an idelogical position. It may help, it may not, it may hurt, it may not. Stating this as an absolute again highlights your prejudices.

It's no different than a Marxist stating that spending must increase as an absolute position to guarantee growth.

In any event, spending can stay frozen while revenues grow with inflation, or the economy can grow while nominal spending grows less than nominal GDP growth, or revenues can grow from non-direct taxation sources, etc., or spending can be cut. There are many approaches, should you take off the blinders. You dont have to agree with them to cede they exist. Pretending managment of public finances is entirely a function of the expenditure side is simply ignorant.

Its a complicated business, public finance. I see that your career in PR and communications hasnt prepared you for it, because you havent used a single technical argument to counter my points (are the CTF economists that write your talking points out of the office today ?)

"Fiddling with figures won't help restore the economy to health."

Then you and the CTF should act like professional economists and accountants worldwide, and stop doing it to make your point.

If the level of debt in BC is so high, why not just use the international standard for comparitive purposes ? If the debt is unmanageable, then it would show just as well by using the international standard.

Your continued use of nominal debt statistics is irrelevant without context. Since you didnt address it the first time, I will reiterate what I said before - management of public debt by use of the debt to GDP ratio is recognized worldwide, by economists, accountants, national and international public sector accounting bodies, international economic organizations, universities, academics, the World Bank, IMF, UN, Euro Currencyy Board, the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve, institutional investors, etc.

So why I am "fiddling with numbers" by using the long standing and widely recognized international standard, and you and the CTF arent, by using nominal debt numbers ?

Can you simply address that one question directly ? Is that too much to ask ?