Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Why? Public sector pensions were adequately funded until very recently. Just because you lower taxes to placate voters doesn't mean you're suddenly absolved from the responsibility to follow through on your good-faith negotiations and contracts. If provinces and municipalities didn't want this reality they shouldn't have cut taxes to the point these pensions were unaffordable.
The fact remains that the most burdensome aspects of our economy is NOT public sector pensions but private sector debt levels. Public sector employees are less of a drain on the provinces economic activity than those using social services. Eventually when the baby boomer generation starts to come home to roost here with their negligible savings and massive healthcare costs, we'll be thanking those pensioners who were able to save adequately for their retirement and continue to put their pension dollars back into the local economy.
It's voodoo economics to say when these pension obligations were signed they were affordable and now after selling off many of Alberta's public assets and reverting to an inefficient flat tax that they are suddenly unaffordable again.
Like basically every other single aspect of Alberta's economic woes, this is tied directly to policy initiatives.
WHY!?
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I find this to be incredibly stupid reasoning.
I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this play out before. It's taken 20 years for the province to recover from Klein's ill-advised healthcare cuts, and it's been far more costly to the province of Alberta than if they'd never happened at all.
Cut public spending now and watch Alberta try to crawl out of the hole for the next 20 years.
|
Wow. Its tough to call someone out-right 'wrong' in a discussion like this, but here I am having to say it.
Everything you just typed out is wrong.
Klein 'cut healthcare spending' because of those ill-advised 'in good faith' pension negotiations.
You're not lowering taxes to take away from public spending. It wasnt like public sector employees were being laid off left, right and centre while the remaining few survivors were taking pay cuts and hunkering down for Armageddon.
Quote:
|
The fact remains that the most burdensome aspects of our economy is NOT public sector pensions but private sector debt levels. Public sector employees are less of a drain on the provinces economic activity than those using social services. Eventually when the baby boomer generation starts to come home to roost here with their negligible savings and massive healthcare costs, we'll be thanking those pensioners who were able to save adequately for their retirement and continue to put their pension dollars back into the local economy.
|
This is just. Wrong. Its just wrong.
Private sector debt levels? What does that mean? Leveraged companies are the problem? What problem is that?
Public sector employees and their insane pensions that are bankrupting cities and states are less of a problem than...people on Ei and welfare? Are you kidding?
Well, for one thing EI and walfare are federal programs whereas public service employees are provincial, but lets not let facts get in the way of things.
Do you realize that you've effectively stated that the 'old and the unemployed' are the problem?
And even if the old, retiring unhealthy people had great savings and loads of money what does that change?