Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
That would entail the government being able to invest their money in a way that actually grows the economy faster than had they never taxed the money to begin with . Which it can't because efficient allocation of capital is an impossible goal when the civil service and politicians are involved. Government spending multiplier effect is less than the multiplier effect of money not being confiscated by government to begin with.
Mark my words, these plans will fail on a cost basis and when that happens the breaking point will be either ransacking Oil and Gas companies, a PST, a progressive tax system, or increases in registries, alcohol taxes et al.
Classic 'Progressive' Albertan politician. At election time say the right things about being fiscally responsible, pretend to work really hard to drive down costs, fail, then threaten the public to slash services if they don't get their paws on a new revenue source. Repeat. Stephen Carter has really tapped into how to get tax and spend Liberals elected in Alberta and it's the opposite of everywhere else. Campaign on the right, govern on the left.
|
I'm not talking specifically about the government investing directly in anything though. I'm just talking about program funding (which is what I thought you were talking about as well?) So while its great to talk about the multiplier effect and such its not really relevant IMO. The government should provide these essential services, Redford has commited monies to increase a couple and still be fiscally prudent while doing so.
Its totally doable. The economy will rise from where we are today, and surely you don't need me to tell you that. As the economy recovers and government revenues increase the programs can be funded....no increased taxation, no deficit, no magic.