Federal Budget 2016: $29B Deficit

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Even so, we are in a sustained period of fiscal austerity. Canada's budget is a global outlier.

Shhh. Don't say this too loud because it will scare a lot of people but the austerity measures that were so widely touted for a lot of European countries a few years ago didn't really work. I mean the obvious country in shambles was Greece, so let's leave them out of this. But countries that took bailouts and committed to austerity to get them before the Greeks like Hungary, were back at the trough for more money a couple years later as well. It just didn't work, plain and simple.

It sounded so good, and made so much sense to have these plans, but when the actual plans were implemented the economies of these countries were stunted, presumedly due to the measures that got them a bailout to begin with (in part, because there are other problems). That doesn't mean we should do the exact opposite, but a little moderation is always a good start in my opinion.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Actully being a fiscal conservative is about being greedy. You literally place the object of money higher then many low income peoples quility of life when you cut social programs so the upper middle class and the 1% can save a few hundred tax dollars.

Placing higher value on money more than human life is the exact definition of greed.

As long as we're going to devolve down to self-righteous over-simplifications...

Your efforts to steal what you did not earn is far greedier than someone else's effort to protect what they did.

[Jason14h]

Your efforts to steal what you did not earn is far greedier than someone else's effort to protect what they did.

You apparently have never watched Robin Hood!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As long as we're going to devolve down to self-righteous over-simplifications...

Your efforts to steal what you did not earn is far greedier than someone else's effort to protect what they did.

That depends on whether you think they actually earn that level of income, or if a significant portion of it is a function of the market rate for their work, which is different.

[Resolute 14]

Naturally, but nuance isn't exactly prevalent in this entire argument.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Wait, MattyC, are you suggesting that there's no connection between the market rate for a specific type of work and whether someone "earned" that market rate? Because to a large extent, the market rate is what it is either because relatively few people can do the job (in which case you've "earned" it by becoming one of those relatively few people, though granted your biology and upbringing have something to do with that in many cases) or because relatively few people WANT to do the job, in which case you're clearly earning the market rate.

Maybe you meant something different and I didn't understand.

[IliketoPuck]

Can someone explain to me why we need $30Bn of deficit spending to stimulate economic growth when the economy grew by 0.6% in January alone?

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2016/3/31/Can...-to-2015-.aspx

My rudimentary understanding of finance has trouble reconciling this.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Shhh. Don't say this too loud because it will scare a lot of people but the austerity measures that were so widely touted for a lot of European countries a few years ago didn't really work.

It sounded so good, and made so much sense to have these plans, but when the actual plans were implemented the economies of these countries were stunted, presumedly due to the measures that got them a bailout to begin with (in part, because there are other problems). That doesn't mean we should do the exact opposite, but a little moderation is always a good start in my opinion.

Don't want to knock the thread off topic but I don't know about that. A lot of the "austerity" was just to get them back on the road to START getting their house back into order. It's not like they were rounding up people and taking everything away and forcing them to eat only stale bread. Not sure if anybody really expected a little bit of reasonable self-control to suddenly fix everything quickly and in a tidy fashion. Of course their economies were stunted, trying to get off the road to bankruptcy will do that. And a lot of people and business that need financial help often need multiple doses - nevermind that their lavish dinners eating out were stunted.

Hell, even in the midst (as late as 2012) of their financial crisis countries like Greece were still do crazy **** like declaring pedophilia a "disability" and offering financial benefits for them along with pyromanias and kleptomaniacs as well. Can you imagine how much more overboard they'd get without at least some minor semblance of restraint or oversight?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait, MattyC, are you suggesting that there's no connection between the market rate for a specific type of work and whether someone "earned" that market rate? Because to a large extent, the market rate is what it is either because relatively few people can do the job (in which case you've "earned" it by becoming one of those relatively few people, though granted your biology and upbringing have something to do with that in many cases) or because relatively few people WANT to do the job, in which case you're clearly earning the market rate.

Maybe you meant something different and I didn't understand.

I'm not suggesting there's no connection. People who work high-demand jobs that require significant skill certainly earn the right to have more than someone who does not. But the difference isn't in the 100s or 1000s of times.

As for the relatively few WANT to do said job, I call BS on that. While there are some jobs that pay better because the job is less desirable (working up north in AB for instance, or plumbers), most undesirable jobs do not. Garbage men, fast food workers, janitors, etc... No one wants those jobs, and the people doing them are not paid premiums because of it.

Conversely, people that work high demand jobs that require significant skill don't necessarily get paid more than those who don't. And the idea of what a significant skill is is also up to interpretation. Someone who works with placing foster children and dealing with domestic abuse issues and what not, IMO, requires interpersonal skills that are non-existent in a lot of people. Those workers went through the same amount of time to get a 4 year degree as an engineering student. So why are their average salaries so different? The market is what is making up a large portion of that difference.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'd work fast food, garbage collection or janitorial services all day every day if it paid me the same as my current work. The reason no one wants those jobs is because they don't pay well, and the reason they don't pay well is largely because everyone can do them. Well, okay, garbage collection may be the exception here.

As for the "it's not worth 100 times more" difference, I feel like you're just applying a really subjective moral judgment about what the value of certain work is. I guess everyone does that, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that your intuitions about those things are inherently right, because they're not based on anything beyond your personal feelings.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm not suggesting there's no connection. People who work high-demand jobs that require significant skill certainly earn the right to have more than someone who does not. But the difference isn't in the 100s or 1000s of times.

As for the relatively few WANT to do said job, I call BS on that. While there are some jobs that pay better because the job is less desirable (working up north in AB for instance, or plumbers), most undesirable jobs do not. Garbage men, fast food workers, janitors, etc... No one wants those jobs, and the people doing them are not paid premiums because of it.

Conversely, people that work high demand jobs that require significant skill don't necessarily get paid more than those who don't. And the idea of what a significant skill is is also up to interpretation. Someone who works with placing foster children and dealing with domestic abuse issues and what not, IMO, requires interpersonal skills that are non-existent in a lot of people. Those workers went through the same amount of time to get a 4 year degree as an engineering student. So why are their average salaries so different? The market is what is making up a large portion of that difference.

Except the Engineering students went through 4 years of hell with max course loads and 50% drop out because they can't do it. Lets stop pretending 4 year degrees are all equal because of duration.

Typically people are paid higher because they possess skills and or knowledge that isn't common in the general public. Obviously some salaries that exist are obscene, but there are so few that its the exception not the rule.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'd work fast food, garbage collection or janitorial services all day every day if it paid me the same as my current work. The reason no one wants those jobs is because they don't pay well, and the reason they don't pay well is largely because everyone can do them. Well, okay, garbage collection may be the exception here.

As for the "it's not worth 100 times more" difference, I feel like you're just applying a really subjective moral judgment about what the value of certain work is. I guess everyone does that, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that your intuitions about those things are inherently right, because they're not based on anything beyond your personal feelings.

For everyone-can-do-those jobs, you're right. But IMO, that doesn't mean that once working that job, those people work any more or less hard than anyone else. Time-wise, it's largely the same. And the point is that people that are doing those jobs, working full-time, trying to support families and what not (just like the rest of us), should be able to provide the same necessities (school, recreation, possibly special needs support, etc..) for their kids as anyone else. My position has always been that we should be working to give everyone the same starting point, not working to help pay for mistakes of adults. But in order to support that kid, you need to support their parents.

For your second paragraph, I don't necessarily disagree. A lot of my value put on work is the time spent doing it. I also have this view because I've spent the better part of my twenties working in a situation where people around me make 20-40% more than I do for doing the same amount of work, and in most cases, quite a bit less. But you will never be able to convince me that anyone earns (as in works hard enough on a day to day basis to justify that difference) 1000s of times more than anyone else. Nobody has that type of positive impact to our system. And hundreds or even thousands isn't really an exaggeration. There are people that make $30k or less that IMO, work just as hard (in actual effort) as someone pulling in $300K or more. And it's not even those people that bother me. There are people who legitmately earn that much. It's the people who bring in 10s of millions per year or more that just straight up don't work hard enough comparatively to justify that difference.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Except the Engineering students went through 4 years of hell with max course loads and 50% drop out because they can't do it. Lets stop pretending 4 year degrees are all equal because of duration.

Typically people are paid higher because they possess skills and or knowledge that isn't common in the general public. Obviously some salaries that exist are obscene, but there are so few that its the exception not the rule.

Yup there's differences for sure. But does that difference earn the difference in salary? I personally don't think so. This doesn't mean I don't think engineers should make better money that social workers (although I certainly know people from both sectors who should probably switch salaries), just that the difference in skill and effort is not as big as the difference in salary.

And as for the last sentence, why are those people allowed to be exceptions? What makes them exceptional?

[burn_this_city]

Usually they're geniuses or the entire life is their work. It's easy for us who put in 8 hours a day to throw rocks at super successful people, but chances are they really do work a hell of a lot harder than us or they took extreme risks personally and financially to get ahead. Very few people just coast through life and end up multi-millionaires.

[OMG!WTF!]

People earning tens of millions aren't doing so by means of a job and paycheck. A few are I guess bit by and large these are investors so the amount of work done is really null and void. It's a different kind of income.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Can someone explain to me why we need $30Bn of deficit spending to stimulate economic growth when the economy grew by 0.6% in January alone?

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2016/3/31/Can...-to-2015-.aspx

My rudimentary understanding of finance has trouble reconciling this.

As does JT's. He ran using "growing the economy" as an excuse for his lavish budget. The truth is the national economy was already on pace for growth. He was never questioned.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm just going to try to parse what you're saying here to make sure I understand your perspective.

Originally Posted by MattyC

For everyone-can-do-those jobs, you're right. But IMO, that doesn't mean that once working that job, those people work any more or less hard than anyone else. Time-wise, it's largely the same.

Are you suggesting that remuneration should be based on the effort involved in doing the work (or as you say the amount of time put in)? If so, do you mean physical effort, or what? This seems like a pretty big claim so I'd like to understand what you mean.

And the point is that people that are doing those jobs, working full-time, trying to support families and what not (just like the rest of us), should be able to provide the same necessities (school, recreation, possibly special needs support, etc..) for their kids as anyone else.

So should peoples' remuneration for the same work vary based on whether or not they have a family or have for example decided to remain a bachelor for their whole life? Should it scale based on the number of kids the employee has?

For your second paragraph, I don't necessarily disagree. A lot of my value put on work is the time spent doing it.

Okay. Well let's say I work twelve hours today and so does the guy at the Macs across town. I'm assuming you think one of us should be paid more than the other, and I'm wondering what criteria you would suggest for deciding how much more?

But you will never be able to convince me that anyone earns (as in works hard enough on a day to day basis to justify that difference) 1000s of times more than anyone else. Nobody has that type of positive impact to our system.

This seems to be a different claim, that remuneration should be in some way based on the "positive impact to our system" that the work performed provides. Can you explain what you mean by that phrase?

[username]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Usually they're geniuses or the entire life is their work. It's easy for us who put in 8 hours a day to throw rocks at super successful people, but chances are they really do work a hell of a lot harder than us or they took extreme risks personally and financially to get ahead. Very few people just coast through life and end up multi-millionaires.

It's not just that they are working harder or took larger risks, but they have also sacraficed a ton. I'd love to see a stat on the divorce rate of executives in this city. How CEO's and VP's literally didn't see their children grow up because they were at work all day and night.

Giving up your life for work is worth something. I'd say millions since I would never sacrafice my family for my job. The fact that most executives give up their lives for work means they should be compensated for it. I think it's total BS to assume their hard work and sacrafice should be given to people who don't work as hard and are not willing to sacrafice what they have.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

People earning tens of millions aren't doing so by means of a job and paycheck. A few are I guess bit by and large these are investors so the amount of work done is really null and void. It's a different kind of income.

Yeah, the whole making money purely by having money is bit of a different ball game that I don't really have the energy to get into right now. People will say that those people are taking risk by investing their money and are rewarded with their return. But in order to have the ability to make any sort of meaningful return, you have to have the money first. And no one is risking more than can afford to lose. IE, if you have the ability to put a million dollars into a company, it's very likely that losing that million is not something you're particularly worried about. Few people have that type of luxury. What has made them so special? Out of the people that have that luxury, IMO, few people have actually earned it. I work with people who do this everyday, and I know where their money comes from. At least half are people that inherited it from their parents and have done little to contribute anything meaningful to society themselves. I obviously have my biases here, but we all do, and these are just my opinions.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm just going to try to parse what you're saying here to make sure I understand your perspective.

Are you suggesting that remuneration should be based on the effort involved in doing the work (or as you say the amount of time put in)? If so, do you mean physical effort, or what? This seems like a pretty big claim so I'd like to understand what you mean.


So should peoples' remuneration for the same work vary based on whether or not they have a family or have for example decided to remain a bachelor for their whole life? Should it scale based on the number of kids the employee has?


Okay. Well let's say I work twelve hours today and so does the guy at the Macs across town. I'm assuming you think one of us should be paid more than the other, and I'm wondering what criteria you would suggest for deciding how much more?

This seems to be a different claim, that remuneration should be in some way based on the "positive impact to our system" that the work performed provides. Can you explain what you mean by that phrase?

Corsi, for the issue of family and providing for kids. IMO, that is what taxes are for. To offset these things. We can't base people's salaries on these things, as you've noted. Which is why we take a portion of people's income to pool and allocate to welfare programs, school subsidies, etc.. and give tax breaks/credits to low income families so they (we) can provide their kids with a good starting point. At least, IMO, that's what the goal of those programs should be.

For the positive impact question, I am happy to answer but don't really have the time or energy right now. And fair warning, it would get pretty deep into my personal philosophies, my abstract view of money, and what I deem to be possible with our current (and future) level of technology and communication. I doubt people really want the thread bogged down in that. I've been writing a fiction novel based in a place where wealth is distributed based on each person's actions net benefit to the society, you're welcome to read it when I'm done. Shouldn't be long .

What I will do is just give an example of something: Let's say someone invents a cure for baldness tomorrow. That person (or company) will, without question, quickly become exuberantly wealthy. But how does that help us as people? What positive impact does that have on our society outside of helping the self-esteem of some people? The market wants that product, so it will be paid for and the person who invented it will be rich. So is the market force really the best gauge we can come up with for what success is? Or what is beneficial to our society as a whole? People argue that the free market drives innovation, and it does, but does it drive it in the proper directions? There is a ton of innovation done in the O&G industry figuring out new ways to get the oil out, because it's profitable. But if that same level of innovation was being applied to alternative energies, wouldn't that be better in the long term for everyone? Is the pursuit of profit really the best way we can structure this?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, the whole making money purely by having money is bit of a different ball game that I don't really have the energy to get into right now. People will say that those people are taking risk by investing their money and are rewarded with their return. But in order to have the ability to make any sort of meaningful return, you have to have the money first. And no one is risking more than can afford to lose. IE, if you have the ability to put a million dollars into a company, it's very likely that losing that million is not something you're particularly worried about. Few people have that type of luxury. What has made them so special? Out of the people that have that luxury, IMO, few people have actually earned it. I work with people who do this everyday, and I know where their money comes from. At least half are people that inherited it from their parents and have done little to contribute anything meaningful to society themselves. I obviously have my biases here, but we all do, and these are just my opinions.



Corsi, for the issue of family and providing for kids. IMO, that is what taxes are for. To offset these things. We can't base people's salaries on these things, as you've noted. Which is why we take a portion of people's income to pool and allocate to welfare programs, school subsidies, etc.. and give tax breaks/credits to low income families so they (we) can provide their kids with a good starting point. At least, IMO, that's what the goal of those programs should be.

For the positive impact question, I am happy to answer but don't really have the time or energy right now. And fair warning, it would get pretty deep into my personal philosophies, my abstract view of money, and what I deem to be possible with our current (and future) level of technology and communication. I doubt people really want the thread bogged down in that. I've been writing a fiction novel based in a place where wealth is distributed based on each person's actions net benefit to the society, you're welcome to read it when I'm done. Shouldn't be long .

What I will do is just give an example of something: Let's say someone invents a cure for baldness tomorrow. That person (or company) will, without question, quickly become exuberantly wealthy. But how does that help us as people? What positive impact does that have on our society outside of helping the self-esteem of some people? The market wants that product, so it will be paid for and the person who invented it will be rich. So is the market force really the best gauge we can come up with for what success is? Or what is beneficial to our society as a whole? People argue that the free market drives innovation, and it does, but does it drive it in the proper directions? There is a ton of innovation done in the O&G industry figuring out new ways to get the oil out, because it's profitable. But if that same level of innovation was being applied to alternative energies, wouldn't that be better in the long term for everyone? Is the pursuit of profit really the best way we can structure this?

Just a couple quick comments on some of this...

With respect to people having to have money in order to invest money: Yes, sure, and no one said life is fair, but without that capital being invested, the economy as a whole, and each of us in particular, are less well off. Taxing most of it and putting it in the hands of the government, is the surest way to create equally (less for everyone).

As to market forces not always driving innovation in the right directions, I'll ignore the 'who decides the right direction' argument and just say this: random selection heads in the wrong direction most of the time as well. But overall, it moves things forwards. We can't know what is the right direction in advance. And we can't know what will turn into the right direction (or vice versa) in the future.

But in the end, things move forward. Compare that with humans trying to guide things - virtually always fails, is substantially less innovative, and creates it's own power issues.

The market system is definitely cloudy. But it works. Can any other systems make that claim?

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by MattyC

... But in order to have the ability to make any sort of meaningful return, you have to have the money first. And no one is risking more than can afford to lose. IE, if you have the ability to put a million dollars into a company, it's very likely that losing that million is not something you're particularly worried about.

...

Strongly disagree