Tuesday, February 26, 2008

No poison pill in budget

CTV is reporting that Flaherty's budget does not appear to contain a 'poison pill' for the Liberals, so it is likely that the budget will pass. If the Liberals don't support it, the Bloc likely will due to recent poor polling numbers.

I would say the the chance of an election in the near future is very remote. Don Martin declares the "True Blue budget leaves Dion in the lurch".

Cool headline!

* * * *

4:45 Update: Duceppe says they can't vote for the budget and the NDP won't, so it's up to the Liberals. Dion was already interviewed and said there wasn't enough in there to force an election. So will they actually vote for it? Or will they just walk out again?

4:50 pm: Dion say no election over budget - Globe

7:30 pm: - Budget Report Card - Post.

You can't please all the people all of the time.


8:10 pm: Don't miss the Rick Mercer skit - We're Liberals: We're adaptable.

38 comments:

Raphael Alexander said...

$10.2 billion all spent on the deficit? What a waste!

Roy Eappen said...

dion has said the budget won't be defeated. There is too much spending. No Capital Gains cuts

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, thanks Dr. Roy. I just heard that too, and updated the post.

Raphael, why is that a waste?

Anonymous said...

I see that CTV has the usual lemmings complaining that it's not good enough.

Good enough for me!

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez --to ralf aleksandr et al:

Paying off one's [own or national] debt never makes no sense whatsoever to the Univ. Grad still living in Mom's rec room. Sponges don't do "Debt - Free."

'tis to larff!

tj

t.e.&o.e.

Sandy said...

Joanne -- OT -- None of my posts are being picked by BT since I had to change servers. Thought I would tell you I have posted something on John Tory and the issue of libel here:
http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2008/02/26/blogosphere-not-conducive-to-libel/

Raphael Alexander said...

Joanne, a $10 billion surplus is a screaming indication of taxpayers being hosed. And they go and blow it all on paying down the deficit. They could have split the difference. I find it amazing that Canadians seem to have no problem with government after government after government coming down with huge surpluses and we just sit there and go "Ho, hum, sucks to be a taxpayer, eh?" Well, whaddyagonnado? eh? Elect a more conservative government? We may not see that until Harper gets a majority. The savings account is something, at least.

As for Dion, I predict the Liberals will abstain. This way they don't have to be responsible for voting on it.

Raphael Alexander said...

Paying off one's [own or national] debt never makes no sense whatsoever to the Univ. Grad still living in Mom's rec room. Sponges don't do "Debt - Free."

Nah, totally non sequitur. A good government can do both. Cut spending and programs if it's a problem. We donate too much of our working life to socialism.

Anonymous said...

Since when is paying down any debt a bad idea?

Raphael Alexander said...

Since when is paying down any debt a bad idea?

Since when did anyone say it was a "bad idea"?

Peter said...

$10.2 billion all spent on the deficit? What a waste!

I'm going to phone the visa card company tonight and tell them that I make to much and I'm not going to pay this year. What do you think they are going to say?

Raphael Alexander said...

Peter, a fallacious analogy.

Wow, I'm surprised so many Canadians are content with an empty budget.

Roy gets it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Roy gets it.

So you're saying not enough tax cuts, right? What about the tax-free savings vehicle?

Roy Eappen said...

I like some cutting the debt, but I do agree with Raphael . Cut taxes and spending . The nanny state must be cut back!

wilson said...

Raphael, where were you when in the Oct minibudget billions of tax relief was given to Canadians?

And you have called the National Debt the 'deficit' here and on Liblogs. Don't you know the difference?
Paying down the debt rewards Canadians every year, year after year after year, with tax relief from the interest saved.
Reduced debt means surety of finances for our social programs, in the future.

IF Canada gets into dire straits, due to the US economic downturn, Canadians will forgive the govt for not paying down the debt, in that year.
Until (if) then, carry on PMSH!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Cut taxes and spending .

Yes, that would have appealed to the party's base. So why didn't they do it? Why not push for an election?

It's very strange.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And you have called the National Debt the 'deficit' here and on Liblogs. Don't you know the difference?

Wilson, I am one of those economically illiterate people that would appreciate an explanation. (Dumbed-down please).

Thanks.

wilson said...

'No Capital Gains cuts'
Yes there is Roy, on the 'savings plan' (this is a Cons legacy plan)

You invest your $5000/year ($10k per couple) anyway you want, no capital gains on the earnings, no taxation on withdrawal, you choose when and what to spend your own money on. Imagine that, no govt taking a chunk of your savings!!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

this is a Cons legacy plan)

That has a nice ring to it.

Möbius said...

I like some cutting the debt, but I do agree with Raphael . Cut taxes and spending . The nanny state must be cut back!

Just like the last budget, they're playing to the maroons in Ontario, and soft Liberal voters. So-called "targeted" spending, etc. It's not a conservative budget, but at least it's not the disaster the last one was, which any Liberal could have written.

This is why we need a majority CPC government. Also why we need to support Dion, because that's how we'll get it in 2009.

Möbius said...

Hey, Joanne, if you're going to make the word verification "drunk test" so difficult, I'm going to have to get new reading glasses.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

if you're going to make the word verification "drunk test" so difficult, I'm going to have to get new reading glasses

Funny how you're the only one who complains, Möbius. ;)

Möbius said...

Wilson, I am one of those economically illiterate people that would appreciate an explanation. (Dumbed-down please).

The National Debt is like your mortgage, how much you owe on your house.

The deficit is more like how much money you bring in annually versus how much goes out.

You should look at debt as a percentage of what you earn. Rich people, theoretically, can handle more debt than poor people, in absolute terms.

If you expect your income to grow, you may be able to take on more debt.

Möbius said...

Funny how you're the only one who complains, Möbius. ;)

Half-Irish and myopic. What can I say?

Möbius said...

The Libs have given up their last shred of credibility when Garth Turner sounds like the most sensible of the bunch.

He wants to vote down the budget.

What are they waiting for? Afghanistan issue gone, crime issues, gone, the economy issues, gone, the Liberal-dominated Senate, whipped.

An election really is unnecessary, since the CPC has their de facto majority already.

Raphael Alexander said...

Raphael, where were you when in the Oct minibudget billions of tax relief was given to Canadians?

Billions sounds like a big word. I am paying $400 less in taxes a year. That breaks down to about $7 off my pay every week. Excuse me while I don't do jumping jacks. I pay more than $400 off each cheque.

And you have called the National Debt the 'deficit' here and on Liblogs. Don't you know the difference?

Yes. But I may have erred.

Möbius said...

Billions sounds like a big word. I am paying $400 less in taxes a year. That breaks down to about $7 off my pay every week. Excuse me while I don't do jumping jacks. I pay more than $400 off each cheque.

Try thinking about it in reverse. Would you like to donate $7 more each week to support corporate welfare, or child care for lesbians, or moonpies, or ad agencies?

It's what I like about the GST cuts. I saved a few hundred on my last car purchase. Not much in the big scheme of things, but let's see the next government of whatever stripe try to increase it.

wilson said...

A deficit is the opposite of a surplus.
ex: Get a payday loan or pay cash to buy new tires.
Many lefties feel we should not cut spending in lean times, but run a deficit (borrow money to meet annual obligations).
Wasn't that Bob Rae's idea of spending Ontario out of a recession??

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ca5e84e0-8d76-4f1b-8eab-d5ead0e5b285&k=33814

$480 billion national debt , (Canada's mortgage, borrowed money) accumulation of years of deficit spending and nation building.

Every year we make principle + interest payments. In 1982 (with Trudeau in charge, damn NEP) interest rates skyrocketed to 24%. Ouch.
Mulroney brought in the hated GST to reverse the need for governments to run deficits.
Martin used the GST and massive cuts to programs and transfer payments to first, get out of deficit spending, and then pay $3b year extra on the debt.

It won't be until 2021 that Canada owns (buildings/pension funds etc) as much as it owes (National Debt)
Net debt will then be 0, in 2021. (if you sold your house, you could pay off the mortgage, nothing more)

So every extra billion we put on the debt gets us closer to our Net Debt target of 2021.
Then are kids are not inheriting a house worth less than the debt against it.
Our kids won't have to pay for our over spending ways.

wilson said...

Raphael, you can put that $400 year, plus all the GST pennies saved on a Tim Horton's coffee, into the new Canada Savings Plan!!

Yes, 'Conservative legacy' has a very nice ring to it Joanne.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wilson and Möbius, thanks for the economics lesson.

So where does the so-called 'surplus' come in that we're supposed to have, if we really have is debt and are operating in a deficit?

wilson said...

The feds took in more tax dollars than the 2007 budget asked for, the extra $10b surplus is going to pay extra principle on the National Debt.
There is a forecasted $2b surplus, in todays budget, so predictions are that more tax dollars will be collected than spent, by this time next year (no deficit spending).

The only way we could end up in a budgetary deficit, is if an event or number of events eat up the predicted $2b surplus, like SARS and ice storms, big unexpected emergency costs to the government.

Raphael Alexander said...

wilson, despite your positive "spin", this is a weak budget offering little for an overtaxed people. I'd love to cheer the troops, but I promised I wouldn't praise something which has nothing.

And I'm sticking to it.

Like Dr. Roy said, capital gains anyone? Income trust reversal? Marginal tax cuts? Income splitting?

No. We get a savings account. Thanks.

Raphael Alexander said...

So where does the so-called 'surplus' come in that we're supposed to have, if we really have is debt and are operating in a deficit?

We have a national debt of about $500 billion, but we run annual budgets. Because Canadians are grossly overtaxed, we often give $10-12 billion more to the government than they need, or have asked for in their operating budget. This is called a surplus.

Where I differ with my friends here is in the belief we should offer relief to Canadians who consistently overpay their taxes to the government, instead of being forced into their involuntary overtaxation to pay down the federal debt.

A "deficit" is where the Progressive Conservatives of Ontario ran about $5 billion over budget in 2002, and left the Liberals with limited spending powers. It's been a source of irritation for Conservatives in Ontario, because it has worked against the credibility of the concept that Conservatives run fiscally prudent budgets. Thanks to Dalton McGuinty's illegal tax hike, he's been able to bring in surplus budgets.

As noted by wilson, I have erred in my usage here. Deficit is fiscal balance per annum. Debt is when one runs consecutive fiscal imbalances which can lead to a negative that accumulates over time.

maryT said...

Who does Canada owe this money to.
A lot of it is owed to canadians who have CSBs, that have not matured yet, but will.
What is the interest rate of this debt. How much is saved by paying 10.2 billion, this year.
For those of you who have mortgages, figure out how much less our home would cost you if you made weekly pymts instead of monthyly or yearly. Same goes with your car pymts or if you pay off yor credit cards every month.
Off topic, but I wonder how much could be saved by making the T1 General much simpler. Just worked thru a copy by hand, (no computer) and to think we paid several people in either the CRA or Finance Ministers office to produce all those calculations and forms is ridiculous.
Yes, I use a computer tax program, but if you can't do it without one you never will understand the system. You have to have an idea of what figures go where, and how they relate to every form.
Lots of new things this year.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks again, guys. Now I have a little financial primer to refer to.

Anonymous said...

I think our present Government believes in incrementalism.
If I remember correctly, Tom Flanagan mentioned that.
If the present course is maintained, we will see less tax, and 10 years from now, lets compare paycheques to what they are today. Small steps may not seem like much, but over time it adds up.
-Lee-

Raphael Alexander said...

Oh man, that Rick Mercer report was hilarious. He finishes the G-forces simulation and he says "The GST cut is beginning to make sense now". LOL!@

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Raphael, Harper just mentioned the RMR in QP!!!