Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Sure but what the numbers point to to is a government that has made no cuts anywhere and just increased taxes. So it's one thing to say people have to get used to a higher tax regime to replace the oil revenues, and honestly I think most Albertans grudgingly accept this. What's hard to accept is that the government isn't cutting spending anywhere.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
We already knew we were overspending before Notley came in. The fact that the Redford/Prentice Tories did it first in no way mitigates the fact that Notley continues to overspend.
So, yeah. When speaking of "rude awakenings" that the population needs to face, I would suggest the cradle to grave supporters might consider the fact that services spending needs to be cut too.
|
I understand where you are both coming from, but there are some facts that support this action. Please try to read this without your anti NDP hats on, I'm not trying to justify their actions based on the party. We will have more tax revenue coming in, this will potentially help stop the bleeding. They will also maintain the services we currently have which people would not like to see go(nobody likes to downsize), this will also avoid paying ballooning catch up costs if they did reduce services and spending(ie road work). There have also been reports of oil bouncing back next year, that also potentially adds a boost. They are also trying to get pipelines approved(whether you agree or not with their way of doing it) which will also potentially provide a boost.
Now you probably noticed I said these thing could potentially help in most cases, what they are basically doing right now is waiting to see, sure is it us as taxpayers who could potentially end up with a bigger deficit to pay off if a year goes by and there are no improvements or not enough? Yes, but there is a potential that the problem could start showing signs of improvement as well, and we could get ourselves out of the situation we're in without cutting funding or programs unnecessarily.
Cutting programs now, as I've said before, can be potentially more expensive than maintaining programs in the long run. If we want something eventually we will pay for it one way or another. I'm not saying it should not be considered on a case by case basis, but if there is an opportunity to fix the problem without reducing our services I think that option needs to be explored first. It's a gamble either way, and this is the more sensible option to take first in my opinion. If this way doesn't work, you can turn to cuts. But if you start with cuts and that doesn't work, do you really think taxpayers are going to want to have taxes raised after you've already cut programs?