Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
How do you know that?
Canada's rapid expansion of infrastructure is directly related to operating income from taxes.
That there has been precious little relative investment in infrastructure, and ever increasing battles over where the more limited tax resources are spent, I think it's pretty difficult to say they weren't necessary to fund those projects and services initially.
Schools, Universities, Bridges, scientific and industrial infrastructure all boomed in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, and have all been crumbling and inadequate since. It's not just that there hasn't been new infrastructure built, either, it's that there is no longer the money to spend maintaining the existing infrastructure as well, causing it to age and degrade prematurely, shortening its lifespan and increasing the likelihood of failure, all of which cost more in the long run than adequate maintenance would cost.
It's not the case of some services drastically increasing in price, it's a case of a smaller pool of tax revenue to finance cost increases for all services across the board.
|
Actually figured you were referring to the 90s since there had been much discussion of debt reduction.
50s 60s and 70s are very different times.
The 70s saw massive deficits, which got us into the mess that Chretien is credited with cleaning up.
50s were a boom for a lot of reasons. I agree that infrastructure needs more resources, but to suggest the 50s were a boom time because taxes were higher is quite the reach.
With a massive baby boom (that one you seem so find of), there was a tremendous need for schools and other infrastructure. There was also a generally positive view of the future and thus an appetite to spend and build.
Lots and lots of dynamics that could be discussed.
Attempting to correlate a time of higher taxes with a more robust economy though, is a stretch. I can just as easily list times when the economy sucked and taxes were higher than they are now.
I agree that more investment in infrastructure is needed. It doesn't follow that higher taxes are needed or are beneficial. It could also be achieved with more efficient spending.
A reduced debt load allows for more allocation to things like infrastructure. But one somewhat necessarily comes before the other.