Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Why is it OK to mortgage your childrens future to keep taxes low today? Why are we using resource revenue for no other reason?
This frustrates me to no end! We have a one-time shot at this, and billions of dollars in revenue. Why won't someone step up and do the right thing here; increase taxes to pay for the services that people want. Instead this "no new taxes" line gets pointed to as "fiscally conservative". Heres the thing; there is no "conserving" going on!
Frankly, its the most selfish policy we could pursue. We have an embarassment of riches, and the only thing we can point to is that the same mediocre healthcare and education cost us less in taxes. We all know that we're behind in infrastructure (in terms of transportation, but have a look at the massive infrastructure deficit in the education system for a real eyeopener) and yet we continue to pursue this silly policy. This is where the vote buying takes place in Alberta; while we are quick to laugh at places like Ontario and Quebec with programs that eat their revenues we spend it on tax reduction instead.
|
And this is what frustrates me and a lot of others. When it has been proven over and over that more money merely maintains the same level of mediocre health care and education, we would rather increase taxes to cover this expenditure rather than change the delivery model (because of the "private" bogeyman.)
"Fiscally conservative" also means providing services more efficiently in order to maintain fiscal control. You cannot have this debate without introducing the core issues of improving efficiency of delivering these services. Otherwise, there is no basis to introduce fiscal responsibility, because these things cost what they cost. Looking only at "no new taxes" or allocation of resource revenues to operational line items is not enough to determine whether a party can or cannot lay claim to the label of "fiscal conservative".