Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

But what about the couple who each made 45K a year for their entire lives, saved money religiously by amongst other things doing their own taxes because they wanted to buy a 100K car and now they cannot afford it due to this extra tax. Have you thought about that totally realistic scenario?

I sure have

[AFireInside]

nm

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

But what about the couple who each made 45K a year for their entire lives, saved money religiously by amongst other things doing their own taxes because they wanted to buy a 100K car and now they cannot afford it due to this extra tax. Have you thought about that totally realistic scenario?

It's not really about the couple who made $45K annually have to pay or not pay the tax. Its about the fact that there is consensus that the guy sitting on $100K should have paid a little more tax some how. People are proposing that he would have the opportunity to sit on the $100K for a while and earn some returns on it, before paying his debt o society in the form of a consumption tax. I'm saying if we all agree that guy should have to pay society $5000 tax on that $100K, the society should take that right away, and not let the guy who has $100K sit on his money for a while.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

But what about the couple who each made 45K a year for their entire lives, saved money religiously by amongst other things doing their own taxes because they wanted to buy a 100K car and now they cannot afford it due to this extra tax. Have you thought about that totally realistic scenario?

Why doesn’t the car company lower the price, so that couple who saved all of their life can buy it?

[Northendzone]

I wish the government would figure out a way to better manage it’s current cash flow rather than dream up new taxes.

As mentioned above, how many more years until the thresholds are lowered and the scope expanded?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I wish the government would figure out a way to better manage it’s current cash flow rather than dream up new taxes.

As mentioned above, how many more years until the thresholds are lowered and the scope expanded?

When people say this - I always have to ask - what In the current budget would you get rid of that would make a meaningful difference?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mull

When people say this - I always have to ask - what In the current budget would you get rid of that would make a meaningful difference?

The size of the public service would be a starting point.

Its too easy to improve job numbers by expanding it. But its also incredibly expensive.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The size of the public service would be a starting point.

Its too easy to improve job numbers by expanding it. But its also incredibly expensive.

So I am not trying to be a smart ass here but when you say that are you proposing to cut specific entire department or have metrics that we have more public employees for the same type of services as other nations?

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

But what about the couple who each made 45K a year for their entire lives, saved money religiously by amongst other things doing their own taxes because they wanted to buy a 100K car and now they cannot afford it due to this extra tax. Have you thought about that totally realistic scenario?

If they have saved $100k surely they can come up with another few bucks to make the difference. Remember the tax you pay is only on the amount OVER $100k, not the “first” $100k. So if the car cost $110k they’re paying 20% on the $10k. So this particular car would cost an additional $2000, less than 2% of the purchase price, peanuts really.

There was an earlier example using a Lexus and it is a good one. You could purchase the less expensive Toyota and save money but instead, opting for the more flashy luxurious Lexus, for no other reason then to drive a Lexus, could now cost even more. And anyone spending $100k+ on a Lexus should be subject to an idiot tax as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mull

So I am not trying to be a smart ass here but when you say that are you proposing to cut specific entire department or have metrics that we have more public employees for the same type of services as other nations?

I am saying that each department has bloat and redundancy that can be targeted. I'm also saying that we could look at combining departments that have similar tasking.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I am saying that each department has bloat and redundancy that can be targeted. I'm also saying that we could look at combining departments that have similar tasking.

I hear that but my question is - is this a talking point we come to all believe about our federal government or is it backed up by data?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The size of the public service would be a starting point.

Its too easy to improve job numbers by expanding it. But its also incredibly expensive.

Yeah, but how will you go around bragging about the job market if you actually have to admit that public sector job growth is higher than the private sector the last few years, and that our economy is built on a pile of bricks that is soon going to fall.

I know its the Fraeser Institute and the Liberal lovers can't stand what they say, but this is ridiculous.

The government sector has accounted for the majority of new jobs since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.

The public sector was responsible for 86.7 per cent of all new jobs created since early 2020, the report, Comparing Government and Private Sector Job Growth in the COVID-19 Era, found. Net jobs in the sector increased by 366,800, or 9.4 per cent, between February 2020 and July 2022.

In stark contrast, there was hardly any new job creation in the private sector, including self-employment, with net jobs increasing by just 56,100, or 0.4 per cent, during the same period.

“The government sector, not the private sector, is driving job creation in Canada since the onset of the COVID pandemic and recession,” Ben Eisen, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, said in a press release.

https://financialpost.com/executive/...ecovery-report

As expected. Though I can't wait to see opendoor spin some ridiculous tales about this. Maybe even Photon will get involved.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mull

So I am not trying to be a smart ass here but when you say that are you proposing to cut specific entire department or have metrics that we have more public employees for the same type of services as other nations?

Our job growth is public sector driven.

We have negligible private sector job growth.

Even you should be able to understand why that is a problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mull

I hear that but my question is - is this a talking point we come to all believe about our federal government or is it backed up by data?

316,000 public sector jobs added since 2020. out of 422,000 jobs added overall in Canada according to Stats Can.

So yeah they bloated the public service, don't worry the Libs do it, the Cons do it, its stats padding and costly.

Its something that is a major budget drag.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, but how will you go around bragging about the job market if you actually have to admit that public sector job growth is higher than the private sector the last few years, and that our economy is built on a pile of bricks that is soon going to fall.

I know its the Fraeser Institute and the Liberal lovers can't stand what they say, but this is ridiculous.

https://financialpost.com/executive/...ecovery-report

As expected. Though I can't wait to see opendoor spin some ridiculous tales about this. Maybe even Photon will get involved.

Luckily I don't even have to write new content; I can just copy and paste from the last time you brought up this exact same misleading point last week:

Since the bottom for job numbers in April 2020, there have been 3.46M net jobs added, with about 3M of those being in the private sector. That article was using February 2020 as the baseline, which makes no sense if you're talking about jobs created as part of the recovery. Public sector jobs rise predictably year to year at about the same rate as economic growth, while private sector jobs ebb and flow. So if you take numbers right before a crisis and then compare them to the point of recovery, obviously virtually all the growth is going to be in the public sector. The exact same thing happened in 2008-2010.

But just for comparison, lazy Canada reached its February 2020 private sector jobs level in February 2022. The United States didn't get there until June 2022.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Azure

Our job growth is public sector driven.

We have negligible private sector job growth.

Even you should be able to understand why that is a problem.

What’s with the sassyness towards me?

If the data backs up your first sentence that’s an awesome and great response - but I don’t get the defensiveness.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

316,000 public sector jobs added since 2020. out of 422,000 jobs added overall in Canada according to Stats Can.

So yeah they bloated the public service, don't worry the Libs do it, the Cons do it, its stats padding and costly.

Its something that is a major budget drag.

Ty this is a sense of what I was looking for

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mull

What’s with the sassyness towards me?

If the data backs up your first sentence that’s an awesome and great response - but I don’t get the defensiveness.

Sassy is his default, usually just to cover for a position he doesn’t have much confidence in. Don’t worry about it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Mull

Ty this is a sense of what I was looking for

It's a deliberately misleading statistic, as simply recovering to February 2020 levels is a feat in itself. Here's how long it has taken to recover to prior peak private sector job numbers in the last 4 recessions in the US (I used the US because the data is easier to pull from and they're a good benchmark):

1990: 3 years and 2 months
2001: 4 years and 2 months
2008: 6 years and 4 months
2020: 2 years and 4 months

So to say "x % of job growth in the last 2 years and 5 months in Canada has been in the public sector" is more or less meaningless because in a normal recession, we wouldn't have expected to even get back to the baseline by this point. The fact that Canada got back to our prior number within 2 years (4 months faster than the US did) is a good thing. But obviously once you hit the point of recovery for private sector numbers, then nearly 100% of the growth will be in the public sector because the private sector has been in recovery for several years.

It's a bit like comparing bank interest to the stock market. If the stock market crashes and then recovers 2 years later, would it make sense to say "99% of the money my investments have returned in the last 2 years have been from my savings account. There's something wrong with the economy if the stock market can't even beat my bank account"? No, you wouldn't. Because stocks fluctuate just like private sector job numbers. And with both, if you cherry pick the period you're comparing, then you can easily make the numbers look bad.

The exact same thing happens every time there's private sector job loss from a recession, so anyone pretending it's unusual or unexpected is either being misleading or is ignorant.

[Roughneck]

Worth noting that the share of public sector jobs in Canada is less now than it was after the 1990 recession, as well.