OT: Sens Lounge LXXV | Future Thread

[StefanW]

To be fair Hudak did make it fairly clear the consequences of cutting the budget and fixing the deficit.


And then he lost huge.

The issue was in how he was choosing to cut the deficit. After laying off 100,000 workers he was planning on cutting corporate tax from 11.5% to 8%. The idea is essentially trickle down economics, where if we pad the wallets of corporations enough, those corporations will turn around and hire people. That idea has some merit, but it does not work to anywhere near the degree that the politicians would have us believe. What we are left with is middle class people shouldering the burden of paying down the deficit, while the richest in society get huge breaks.

The truth did not cost him the election. An unpalatable ideology that had its heyday back in the mid to late 1980s did.

 

[Benjamin]

Creamy Dill Pickle Mustard is teh best sauce in the world.

 

[Senscore]

The issue was in how he was choosing to cut the deficit. After laying off 100,000 workers he was planning on cutting corporate tax from 11.5% to 8%. The idea is essentially trickle down economics, where if we pad the wallets of corporations enough, those corporations will turn around and hire people. That idea has some merit, but it does not work to anywhere near the degree that the politicians would have us believe. What we are left with is middle class people shouldering the burden of paying down the deficit, while the richest in society get huge breaks.

The truth did not cost him the election. An unpalatable ideology that had its heyday back in the mid to late 1980s did.

Padding corporate wallets would be more in line with subsidies. Lower corporate tax rates in this sense would be done so with the idea that 1. Businesses would hire more people or expand and 2. More favorable rates would draw in more businesses to Ontario. In this sense it's more practical than the same sort of application to personal income tax rates, but as Ontario's rates are already fairly in line with the rest of Canada, I can't see such a reduction being a huge factor anyway.

While I really don't take any stock in trickle-down economics, I can at least appreciate his attempt to outline the costs associated with reckless spending, as opposed to painting everything associated with increased spending as sunshine and roses.

As it stands now, there are some truly serious issues with the provincial deficit, and it doesn't look to change any time soon. It's expected that Ontario's credit rating will take another downgrade in the near future.

And then of course, massive cuts will be required, and likely many people will lose their jobs anyway.

Which will then be forgotten by the next election cycle.

 

[StefanW]

Padding corporate wallets would be more in line with subsidies. Lower corporate tax rates in this sense would be done so with the idea that 1. Businesses would hire more people or expand and 2. More favorable rates would draw in more businesses to Ontario. In this sense it's more practical than the same sort of application to personal income tax rates, but as Ontario's rates are already fairly in line with the rest of Canada, I can't see such a reduction being a huge factor anyway.

While I really don't take any stock in trickle-down economics, I can at least appreciate his attempt to outline the costs associated with reckless spending, as opposed to painting everything associated with increased spending as sunshine and roses.

As it stands now, there are some truly serious issues with the provincial deficit, and it doesn't look to change any time soon. It's expected that Ontario's credit rating will take another downgrade in the near future.

And then of course, massive cuts will be required, and likely many people will lose their jobs anyway.

I don't agree that there is a huge distinction between cutting corporate tax and providing subsidies. They are dressed up differently, but both are designed to make corporations more profitable. In other words, they each put money into the corporate coffers.

I couldn't agree more with the dangerous situation in terms of the deficit. As far as I was concerned, none of the parties provided any inspiring answers for how to go about fixing it. As you correctly point out, many people will eventually be out of work anyway when the bills can no longer be paid after our credit rating takes a hit. All I saw from the three main parties were different economic fantasies that had more to do with deep rooted and historical ideological convictions than any type of sincere attempt to find a way out of this mess.

 

[Qward]

standard economic calculation. Tax cuts will increase the economy 7 fold.
that means every dollar you cut = 7 dollars of economic growth.
That is why Conservatives always push for it. Liberals dislike it because now you have to take that dollar from a program.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

standard economic calculation. Tax cuts will increase the economy 7 fold.
that means every dollar you cut = 7 dollars of economic growth.
That is why Conservatives always push for it. Liberals dislike it because now you have to take that dollar from a program.

That's some #HudakMath right there.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

So who takes down all those hideous campaign signs? And what is the point of those signs anyway? Are people supposed to be swayed to vote for whichever colour they see more of? Or is it just a happy fun time thing like throwing up Sens flags?

What kind of nincompoop actually goes around putting these things up?

 

[Qward]

That's some #HudakMath right there.

That is right out of Macro Economics Canada 3.

 

[Caeldan]

The issue was in how he was choosing to cut the deficit. After laying off 100,000 workers he was planning on cutting corporate tax from 11.5% to 8%. The idea is essentially trickle down economics, where if we pad the wallets of corporations enough, those corporations will turn around and hire people. That idea has some merit, but it does not work to anywhere near the degree that the politicians would have us believe. What we are left with is middle class people shouldering the burden of paying down the deficit, while the richest in society get huge breaks.

The truth did not cost him the election. An unpalatable ideology that had its heyday back in the mid to late 1980s did.

The 100k number though, wasn't actual layoffs though - it was largely attrition of middle management type positions. Heck some of the boogeymen that were being tossed about in that number by the liberals, the province doesn't even have control over hiring/firing(ie firefighters).

To support the Liberal plan, two years down the road they're going to have to cut significantly more jobs than the PC plan ever planned. And rising hydro costs are just going to drive all manufacturing out of the province.

 

[StefanW]

The 100k number though, wasn't actual layoffs though - it was largely attrition of middle management type positions. Heck some of the boogeymen that were being tossed about in that number by the liberals, the province doesn't even have control over hiring/firing(ie firefighters).

To support the Liberal plan, two years down the road they're going to have to cut significantly more jobs than the PC plan ever planned. And rising hydro costs are just going to drive all manufacturing out of the province.

I believe Hudak was the first to toss out the 100k figure. The 100k, of course, was positions rather than people-something everyone is government is familiar with. Still 100k less good jobs in the end though.

Wasn't the firefighter's union the ones who put out a message about the cuts? I am not sure if that was a Liberal thing, but I could be wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that announcing the elimination of 100k government jobs was unwise. It panders to the conservative base, but he already had that vote. It essentially scared away a lot of people who may have been angry enough to vote the Libs out. It may have been a boogeyman (which all parties create during elections), but it is important to note that it was a gift wrapped one.

 

[Quo]

So who takes down all those hideous campaign signs? And what is the point of those signs anyway? Are people supposed to be swayed to vote for whichever colour they see more of? Or is it just a happy fun time thing like throwing up Sens flags?

What kind of nincompoop actually goes around putting these things up?

They're important at the start of the campaign simply to announce who the candidates are. It becomes overkill really quickly.

Parties will cold call individuals and ask them if they want a sign on their property. Or people request them. The nincompoop volunteer will then set it up and take them down at the end of the campaign.

Public property is fair game, more or less. Generally, I find the Liberals and Conservatives are the worst at saturating those areas with pointless clusters of signs. They have the highest budgets.

 

[Savitar]

I'm glad the liberals won

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

That is right out of Macro Economics Canada 3.

And you paid for that textbook? Who was the author? Ronald Reagan? Why have taxes at all?

 

[MainDotC]

The cup is coming back to Ithaca

 

[StefanW]

And you paid for that textbook? Who was the author? Ronald Reagan? Why have taxes at all?

The numbers in that textbook are probably correct, and possibly even on the conservative side. There are a couple of hitches though.

Say you drop corporate tax from 12% to 11%. That makes the province more attractive for outside business, and it keeps money with businesses that are already here. New business creates jobs. If old business keeps more cash it may (caveat) reinvest that cash into material or added labour.

When business buys material, such as hammer, lumber, etc, that purchase is taxed. The items bought also need to be manufactured, so it props up other businesses.

Along with taxing purchases by business, taxes are also collect from workers on their pay, and also on every purchase that is made. So the same cash that is injected into the system is circulated again and again, and taxed again and again.

The trick is finding the sweet spot where workers still have enough leverage to be paid a decent wage, enough cash is raised for infrastructure (which business needs as well if it is roads, bridges, rail, etc), and the social safety net is adequately protected.

This is a difficult balancing act. If you slash government jobs the results are often felt in terms of services, protections, etc. If you don't cut enough some fat tends to develop in the system, and inefficiencies and wastefulness develop.

 

[HavlatMach9]

The trick is finding the sweet spot where workers still have enough leverage to be paid a decent wage, enough cash is raised...

would you say that that's a more political exercise, or more a financial/mathematical one?

 

[StefanW]

would you say that that's a more political exercise, or more a financial/mathematical one?

Purely political, because how much average workers need is a matter of opinion. A rich person who owns a corporation, lets say Walmart, may not see the same value in a decent minimum wage, benefits, etc, for workers as your average middle class family.

 

[Caeldan]

I believe Hudak was the first to toss out the 100k figure. The 100k, of course, was positions rather than people-something everyone is government is familiar with. Still 100k less good jobs in the end though.

Wasn't the firefighter's union the ones who put out a message about the cuts? I am not sure if that was a Liberal thing, but I could be wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that announcing the elimination of 100k government jobs was unwise. It panders to the conservative base, but he already had that vote. It essentially scared away a lot of people who may have been angry enough to vote the Libs out. It may have been a boogeyman (which all parties create during elections), but it is important to note that it was a gift wrapped one.

Oh I agree Hudak should have kept his mouth shut.
But basically he was just planning on returning government staffing to levels it was before the Liberals bloated it with middle management spots to protect the upper management - I mean can you honestly say that the provincial services you receive are any better now than 4 years ago?

 

[StefanW]

Oh I agree Hudak should have kept his mouth shut.
But basically he was just planning on returning government staffing to levels it was before the Liberals bloated it with middle management spots to protect the upper management - I mean can you honestly say that the provincial services you receive are any better now than 4 years ago?

You are right, they are not any better. The thing is that Hudak would not be able to specifically single out positions that would be gone. One reason why middle management tends to become bloated is that managers are the ones who pick who gets the axe. During periods of growth management positions increase at a rate that is appropriate for the number of new positions in a given department. Then cuts come around, and because few people decide to fire themselves you end up losing a ton of temp help, contract positions, and FTEs who are in administrative roles. When you erase those positions the proportion of middle and upper rises by virtue of decreasing the denominator in the calculation of the proportion.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but this is a big factor.

 

[BonkTastic]

Oh I agree Hudak should have kept his mouth shut.
But basically he was just planning on returning government staffing to levels it was before the Liberals bloated it with middle management spots to protect the upper management - I mean can you honestly say that the provincial services you receive are any better now than 4 years ago?

Government spending is actually far more efficient these days than it has been at almost any other point in the last 40 years... Government spending in the 80's was wasteful on an epidemic level. There's this myth out there that government workers are getting lazier.... it's not that - it's that they're getting OLDER.

The economics of the civil service are all out of whack because the huge balloon of Baby-Boomer-era civil servants are currently either close to retirement age (and therefore, based on 30+ years of service & 30 years of raises, making more money than they ever have at any other point in their lives), and because so many of those Baby Boomers are retiring on full government pensions, which creates huge, massive expenditures because there aren't enough taxpayers to offset the cost.

 

[18Hossa]

First OC transpo ride

 

[Baby Ryan]

Hey guys, I just wanted your opinion if my graphics card not meeting the recommended settings, but it does meet the requirement settings, if that will have a major impact on gameplay for skyrim on my laptop. I do gaming on my laptop, but haven't tried a game on the level skyrim before. Only The Sims, Company of Heroes 2, etc.

Minimum:

Recomended:

 

[DrakeAndJosh]

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Mr. I that house of cards is as good as breaking bad. I'm almost finished the first season now and all I can say is wow...

 

[Caeldan]

For the laptop - I think I might actually have that video card in mine and it has run skyrim.

As long as you can accept having some visual settings turned down usually you can make less powerful machines work.

Things like reflections and shadows are two of the toughest details on a card after resolution. Also draw distance.

 

[Baby Ryan]

For the laptop - I think I might actually have that video card in mine and it has run skyrim.

As long as you can accept having some visual settings turned down usually you can make less powerful machines work.

Things like reflections and shadows are two of the toughest details on a card after resolution. Also draw distance.

YES, awesome! Thanks Cael, I don't minding toning down some of the graphics stuff so long as I get to play it.

Merci beaucoup.