Social programs a budget priority for Cdns.: poll

[RedHot25]

Interesting poll results....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...8?hub=Politics

On the eve of the March 19 federal budget, a new poll suggests only a minority of Canadians want the government to cut taxes, while half want Ottawa to spend more on social programs.

....

Economists have said Ottawa's planning surplus could reach $8 billion for the next fiscal year, and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is expected to include several tax cuts in the federal budget.
"It will reinforce the image voters have that these guys are pretty solid fiscal managers who care about the rich, but really don't have a common touch in synch with the general public mood," Strategic Counsel chairman Allan Gregg told CTV.ca.


.....


When respondents were asked what they thought to be the most important issue for the budget to address, social programs were the clear favourite:

• Increasing spending on social programs: 50 per cent
• Cutting taxes: 19 per cent
• Transferring funds to the provinces for their use: 15 per cent
• Reducing debt: 13 per cent.

[Frank the Tank]

I'm floored that cutting taxes wasn't the most important. I guess taxes only aggrivate me.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm floored that cutting taxes wasn't the most important. I guess taxes only aggrivate me.

A lot of people don't understand that a surplus means you've been over-taxed. Instead its viewed us "money to spend".

Not saying some more funds to social programs would be all bad, but cutting taxes is always a good thing. Put the money back in the pockets of Joe Citizen.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

A lot of people don't understand that a surplus means you've been over-taxed. Instead its viewed us "money to spend".

Not saying some more funds to social programs would be all bad, but cutting taxes is always a good thing. Put the money back in the pockets of Joe Citizen.

Oh ya, I should add that helping out the social programs is important, but holy crap, when you add it all up, we pay a TON of taxes in this country.

[RedHot25]

Overall, I think in all honesty you are seeing a "balancing out" of priorities in a sense for the general public. For a long time now - think 20 years (mid/late '80s to now) - tackling the deficit/debt were the HUGE UTMOST priorities. That and cutting taxes, eliminating taxes, etc were the norm...to various extents but it happened across the country, and the world. To me, this opinion poll demonstrates that yes that is still important (if you add the "economic options" - i.e. tax cuts or debt reduction - you are looking at support in the 30%s), however....I just think its a bit of a natural swing back. Economics has been front and centre for a long time to the average Canadian, so I think that a lot of people now are saying: "well, yes we did cut back on a lot of things...and we are still watching things...and we like tax cuts, but only to an extent....what about that social program over there? My parents are getting near retirement, what type of supports are there for them? What about this service for me? etc".

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Everyone is ultruisitic when it comes with words but when push comes to shove the majority of the population would in all reality likely call for more tax cuts relative to money being poured into social programs, the majority of which the average person is likely never going to see the benifit of (having worked for a the non-for-profit agency before I have no qualms in saying that there is a large amount of waste associated with social programs).

[GoinAllTheWay]

Tax cuts would be the biggest thing for me, we are nailed with a rediculous amount of it. Losing almost half your paycheque to taxes is nothing short of infuriating. I would much rather they kept the GST where it was an rolled back our taxes back to where we can all see an decent amount of money staying on our paycheques, the goverment would likely be able to re-collect a bunch of it in GST as people would be spending way more of their new found disposable income.

[mykalberta]

Remove all polled fvrom metro Toronto and Vancouver and the poll might mean something for the Conservatives.

There is a reason internal Conservative polling doesnt include large sections of Toronto or Vancouver and similarily Liberal polling pretty much ignores Alberta and the Kelowna area of BC.

MYK

[Slava]

Its because tax-cuts are not the great panacea that the right would have you believe! Sure, they might put a little bit of extra money in someones pocket, but when they need the social program to be there and its not (or its available after an enormous wait, or whatever the case) it still makes people upset.

Tax-cuts don't do enough to fix all of the problems in our society, end of story. (I should say that I like more money as much as the next guy, but its the best of everything).

Also, MYK are you saying that the Conservatives won't poll Toronto or Vancouver because they are pretty much shot there anyway?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its because tax-cuts are not the great panacea that the right would have you believe! Sure, they might put a little bit of extra money in someones pocket, but when they need the social program to be there and its not (or its available after an enormous wait, or whatever the case) it still makes people upset.

Tax-cuts don't do enough to fix all of the problems in our society, end of story. (I should say that I like more money as much as the next guy, but its the best of everything).

Also, MYK are you saying that the Conservatives won't poll Toronto or Vancouver because they are pretty much shot there anyway?

Are you saying that Joe Citizen isn't responsible enough to spend his/her own money and that somehow government could do a better job?

Trudeau et al certainly proved you wrong, didn't they?

Of course, we need a minimal welfare state to help those who fall through the cracks and get back on their feet again. But, Canadians by and large should be allowed to spend their money how they want to, not have it wasted away on a plethora of special interest budget programs.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are you saying that Joe Citizen isn't responsible enough to spend his/her own money and that somehow government could do a better job?

Trudeau et al certainly proved you wrong, didn't they?

Of course, we need a minimal welfare state to help those who fall through the cracks and get back on their feet again. But, Canadians by and large should be allowed to spend their money how they want to, not have it wasted away on a plethora of special interest budget programs.

No, its not a case of people not being able to spend money wisely or anything like that. Its just that when you look at the social programs in general it makes the most sense if we all pay a little bit so that they are there when we need them. I rarely, if ever, need the healthcare system at this point in my life; but I would rather pay for it all along because one day I will need it! When I do, I can continue paying my small amount rather than a hefty one-shot payment when I have other things to worry about.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, its not a case of people not being able to spend money wisely or anything like that. Its just that when you look at the social programs in general it makes the most sense if we all pay a little bit so that they are there when we need them. I rarely, if ever, need the healthcare system at this point in my life; but I would rather pay for it all along because one day I will need it! When I do, I can continue paying my small amount rather than a hefty one-shot payment when I have other things to worry about.

But by paying that small amount, and the fact that everyone pays that small amount, has created a public health system with many free-riders and one that is also fairly mediocre on the global scale.

Once again, I do believe there is a need for some public healthcare, but the one we have now is not cost-effective and is not giving Canadians the healthcare outcomes they deserve.

Social spending is social spending. It will always be there and will always be needed. However, smart social spending is almost never practiced by governments.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

But by paying that small amount, and the fact that everyone pays that small amount, has created a public health system with many free-riders and one that is also fairly mediocre on the global scale.

Once again, I do believe there is a need for some public healthcare, but the one we have now is not cost-effective and is not giving Canadians the healthcare outcomes they deserve.

Social spending is social spending. It will always be there and will always be needed. However, smart social spending is almost never practiced by governments.

Peter, the fact is that there are always free riders, no matter what the system is or who it is intended to help. You can't base your system on the lowest common denominator though, or else no one gets any help.

Maybe this is not a good question to ask (the thread might be completely de-railed!) but, what is "smart social spending"?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

Peter, the fact is that there are always free riders, no matter what the system is or who it is intended to help. You can't base your system on the lowest common denominator though, or else no one gets any help.

Maybe this is not a good question to ask (the thread might be completely de-railed!) but, what is "smart social spending"?

Smart social spending is making sure you maximize your citizens' hard-earned tax dollars and not frivously spending it for political means.

Free-riders and poor spending will always be an ugly side of state social programs and government budgets. However, there are smart policy options which help maximize tax dollars and cut back on waste. Simply rolling your eyes and saying "oh well, there will always be waste", you don't help solve any problems, but continue to perpetuate the myths that blanket government programs actually do a decent job in providing care for citizens.

The policy options are out there, and they aren't necessarily the domain of left or right. There are options that simply work better than the ones we have in place.

In regards to our healthcare system, Canada's "universal" public healthcare is wasteful and bloated, without providing a decent standard (globally) of care to Canadians. By introducing a well-planned two-tier system (see: France) you can cut out waste, encourage responsibility abd choice, while providing much better care.

[Tron_fdc]

What would it cost to get rid of the GST altogether? I'd rather get rid of that friggin annoyance than anything else.

[Slava]

While I agree that the moment you mention two-tier it gets peoples backs up, I can see the validity. The problem from here is that people tend to think that there is not as much wastefulness in a private corporation...I've worked for some large ones, and the waste was incredible!

The budget being delivered right now is the usual shell game with peoples money; I don't say this based on the budget itself because I haven't seen it yet. But when you get down to it, there is only so much money to go around and when there are spending announcements or tax cuts the money is coming from somewhere else.

Regardless, its rather pathetic that social programs have been at the top of peoples list for as long as I seem to remember. They stay there because there are no real credible solutions enacted by any either of the governing parties!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

What would it cost to get rid of the GST altogether? I'd rather get rid of that friggin annoyance than anything else.

I'd rather jack up consumption taxes like the GST and take income taxes down a bit.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Smart social spending is making sure you maximize your citizens' hard-earned tax dollars and not frivously spending it for political means.

Free-riders and poor spending will always be an ugly side of state social programs and government budgets. However, there are smart policy options which help maximize tax dollars and cut back on waste. Simply rolling your eyes and saying "oh well, there will always be waste", you don't help solve any problems, but continue to perpetuate the myths that blanket government programs actually do a decent job in providing care for citizens.

The policy options are out there, and they aren't necessarily the domain of left or right. There are options that simply work better than the ones we have in place.

In regards to our healthcare system, Canada's "universal" public healthcare is wasteful and bloated, without providing a decent standard (globally) of care to Canadians. By introducing a well-planned two-tier system (see: France) you can cut out waste, encourage responsibility abd choice, while providing much better care.

Uh oh! Two-TIER?? You must surely mean an American Healthcare system where people die on operating tables cause their Visa maxed out! ...Seeing as there's only two healthcare systems on Earth, right Friends of Medicare?

Honestly, the problem with social spending is it can lead to the creation of a society with no foresight or motivation, since the government takes you by the hand from cradle to grave... what is supposed to be a safety net becomes a safety hammock. Essentially, the upper and middle class pay for the poor, while the poor complain that the upper and middle are doing better.

Smart social policy, to expand a bit, requires policy that make people do what you require of them, accomplishes the policy objective, all without blowing the wad, so to speak.

Example: A $5 fee for seeing a doctor would drastically reduce the abuse of the system, even though its something everyone can afford, simply because there's a cost involved, people won't bag it like a rental car.
Or, having ABHC work a little more like a conventional insurance company... if you are a fat, lazy smoker, you pay twice or three times the rate that an active, svelte non-smoker pays, since you are likely a larger and more expensive risk to the system. Promote healthy living, punish bad choices, and lower the demand for healthcare as much as possible. There are various tangible ways to track this.

A non-healthcare example would be only giving welfare to single parents, or those in the process of improving their education, like in the UK.

Tax cuts are wiser, since they encourage people to spend more and reinvest in the economy, via consumption taxes, and paying other people's wage. Plus, there's the simple belief that people deserve to keep as much of their hard earned money as possible.

[Slava]

Thunderball, a lot of what you are saying here is great.....as long as the economy is strong and there are jobs everywhere. (only giving welfare to single parents and such). The simple fact is that not everyone on these programs is out to steal all that they can from the government! I've never had to use the welfare system, or EI; but if I needed to I'd be very grateful to have the opportunity. (as are most of the users I would guess).

Tax-cuts do almost nothing to stimulate the economy, look no further than our neighbours to the south if you need to see that in action.

I'm in favour of promoting good health, but it does get dangerous when you start charging people for different health issues.

Finally, I don't know anyone who is lacking foresight or motivation because of social spending. I doubt that I even know someone, who knows someone who went through school just salivating at the day they could live off the generous welfare state.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thunderball, a lot of what you are saying here is great.....as long as the economy is strong and there are jobs everywhere. (only giving welfare to single parents and such). The simple fact is that not everyone on these programs is out to steal all that they can from the government! I've never had to use the welfare system, or EI; but if I needed to I'd be very grateful to have the opportunity. (as are most of the users I would guess).

Tax-cuts do almost nothing to stimulate the economy, look no further than our neighbours to the south if you need to see that in action.

I'm in favour of promoting good health, but it does get dangerous when you start charging people for different health issues.

Finally, I don't know anyone who is lacking foresight or motivation because of social spending. I doubt that I even know someone, who knows someone who went through school just salivating at the day they could live off the generous welfare state.

A lot of it is theory... and sometimes there's circumstances that make it less valid.

Not everyone leeches from the system.. that's a fact. But... there are people who become, accustomed, to a cheque every month, and allow themselves to remain dormant and eventually out of date. Its kind of a sad joke that the average income in Newfoundland is very close to the average welfare payout. Why move for jobs if you're paid to live where you are? Its hard to fault them, but maybe that shouldn't be there, at least, not indefinitely. No one dreams of being a ditch digger... but it happens often enough. Same with the dream of being a welfare recipient. Governments need to motivate and encourage people who are down on their luck to get out there, even in times where the economy is not so great, there is always demand for skilled and educated labor.

Economies are relatively stable with small ups and downs, save for unforeseen booms and busts, typically they can be forecasted and budgetted accordingly... but what happens in a recession when less people are pulling in tax income, and the governments can't afford these programs when they are needed both. Lets not forget, when times were tough in Alberta, healthcare and education felt the knife cut rather deep. Its a values debate, but the question is, would you rather have the means to have your own rainy day fund, or depend on the government.

The US can be the best and worst example of low taxes fuelling the economy... depending on the year you survey. Due to their massive government spending, particularly in overseas military spending, the money reinvested by the citizenry is not having its desired and usual effect.

Preventative healthcare is the wave of the future. Its what is behind smoking bans, trans fat bans, tax incentives for corporate gyms, etc. Its cheaper to keep people healthy, than treat them when they are sick. This doesn't mean that we stop treating cancer patients, etc. Its driven by the opposite argument. Demand v. Supply. The idea is, if we can lessen the demand, we can reduce the costs to maintain and increase supply, since it is less dire.