| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 669.1 | Cut our services.. not their perks!!! | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Mon Mar 22 1993 14:18 | 10 |
| just as a matter of interest, did the operating expenses of the
government appear as an area that could be cut? You know, like the
pensions they can get right after quitting politics? The rest of us
have to wait untill we retire, why not them?? My point is, they ask us
what to cut, when what I would like to cut most is THEIR waste.
Derek.
(PS. Did anybody catch "Ross the Boss" on TV last night)
|
| 669.2 | here's the numbers | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Tue Mar 23 1993 07:49 | 92 |
| Here the beef
91-92 budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer to persons million $
Seniors benifits 18,393
Unemployment insurance 18,126
Family allowance 2,821 not required in 93
Other 1,434
------
40,774
Transfers to other levels of government
Payments to less wealthy prov 8,854
Health 6,689
Canada assistance plan 6,099
Education 2,142
Other 2,300
------
26,084
Other transfer payments
Foriegn aid 2,787
Indians and inuit 2,547
Job creation and training 1,951
Regional/industrial development 2,002
Support for farmers 1,853
Other 3,985
------
15,125
Crown corporations
CMHC (housing) 1,904
CBC 1,031
Via rail 441
Other 1,925
------
5,301
Cost of running government departments
Agriculture 878
Communications 464
Employment and immigration 538
Environment 1,000
External affairs 1,052
Industry science technology 1,243
National defense 10,948
National revenue 2,163
Public works 874
Solicitor general 2,344
Transport 1,266
Other 4,317
------
28,160
Interest on national debt 41,231
======
TOTAL SPENDING 156,675
Income taxes
Personal 61,222
Corporate 9,359
Unemployment insurance premiums 15,394
non resident 1,261
------
87,236
Excise and duties
GST 15,168
Import 3,999
Gas tax 3,138
Other 2,891
------
25,196
Other revenue TAX 273
Other revenue NON TAX 9,327
======
TOTAL REVENUE 122,032
DEFICIT 34,643
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian V
|
| 669.3 | A financial mess | VAOU09::BOTMAN | Pieter Botman - Western Canada DIS | Tue Mar 23 1993 12:48 | 50 |
| Just giving us the list of how much we paid for which departments isn't
going to give us a decent indication of whether there was "value
received for the money". In an ideal world I would hope to see figures
related to budgets broken down by sources of costs (especially those
which can be defined on a per user basis), and revenues (also
identifying those revenues which come from users), something like this:
Ministry: Dept of Transport
-------- SERVICE ------ Overhead Cost/User ******REVENUES*******
------ PROVIDED ----- Costs or Transact'n Pass Fee Airline Gen'l
Airport Ops (Mirabel) $10M $25/pass $12/pass $2M/yr $5M
(Pearson) $19M $20/pass $12/pass $8M/yr $7M
(Vancouver) $17M $21/pass $12/pass $7M/yr $8M
Once this is out into the open, an informed taxpaying public can see
exactly what it is they are subsidizing with general tax dollars. The
argument about how much should the rich taxpayers pay is another story.
I'm only saying that users should pay their share, and that general
taxpayers should be able to influence where that line is drawn. Do not
think that everything has a direct user value equation, though: I
don't think drug addicts dying on the street should be subject to the
"user pay" equation - their treatment is something that all of us wish
to pay for, because the victims can't pay, because it is the right
thing to do, and because it will cost us more in the long run to not
pay.
Having said this, how does any taxpayer get "value" from paying the
interest on the deficit? Nobody does, or we all do. We all do, in the
sense that we are paying interest on things we bought long ago. We
might not be receiving any benefit from these things, but man we're
still paying for them - big time! I almost feel like saying we should
have separate tax payments on the debt. This will:
o hammer home to people how much we are all paying in interest,
and encourage us to get it paid off sooner;
o reduce the need to slim down other bona fide gov't budgets, which
would otherwise get forced down to zero;
o perhaps lead to an emphasis on the deficit - perhaps there will
be a change of perception, and we will come up with brighter ideas
for discharging that debt (sell the rest of Air Canada? Sell
Toronto?)
Pieter
|
| 669.4 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Thu Mar 25 1993 15:36 | 15 |
| Altough the debt we all have to pay IS high, we are the beneficiaries
of the money borrowed. The biggest single expense of the governement
is benefits to ALL. We should ALL start thinking that each time we go
to the doctor WE ALL pay. each time we use one or the other of these
"free" services, someone has to pay and that someone is all of us.
Each time we cheat the governement, we cheat ourselves. We all have
the mentality that we should get "our money's worth" so we all cheat on
our taxes, we all use as much of the services provided as we can and
after we all complain it's costing too much. It took 75 years for
comunism to prove you don't get something for nothing, with socialism,
it takes a bit longer (if it hides under a capitalist system).
Jean
|
| 669.5 | Impeach the Leaches | KAOFS::D_STREET | Virtue is relative | Thu Mar 25 1993 21:34 | 19 |
| I don't think I want "something for nothing". When I look at the taxes
I pay in a year (income, pst, gst, municiple,...), I want "something
for something". That something being a fairly healthy chunk of my
income. The trouble is, those in power (at all levels of government) can
only seem to cut the programs that effect the people they are there to
represent. (I wouldn't insult anyone by saying they are there to serve)
Recently the City of Ottawa had a budget crunch. They figured they
could save money by closing some outdoor rinks. One councile member was
on TV saying if they cut the FREE DOUGHNUTS AND COFFEE for the
meetings, they could save a rink. He then went on to point at a number
of other reasonable areas that could be cut from the perks given to
these "politicans". I am sick and tired of them pi$$ing away my money,
then telling me that there is no money to fund needed programs like
houses for battered women.
The leaches are not the people, it's the leaders.
Derek.
|
| 669.6 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Sick in a balanced sort of way | Mon Mar 29 1993 14:17 | 6 |
| Also, in Ottawa, consider the new "palatial" city hall. No corners cut
there for sure!
Nuts!
Glenn
|
| 669.7 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Tue Mar 30 1993 14:21 | 30 |
| Why do you buy car or fire insurance? Why do United Staters buy
medical insurance?
My house has never burned, why should I have fire insurance?
I don't usualy have major operations, why shoud I pay for my
neighbor's gall bladder operation?
The answer is very simple, the financial burden is spread over the
whole population. Insurance companies don't make much money, 1 or 2%
at best. Their calculations are simple:
claims + administration = premiums
Which is almost the same as taxes, except the "claims" and the
"administration" have grown faster than the premiums (blame this on
Adam Smith and the idiots who beleived him).
Claims are now very high because we pay for all sorts of programs which
are for a minority. The administration for all these programs are
sometimes higher than the programs themselves, add the two together and
wonder of wonder we are in the RED.
How to get out of it? just stop spending, how? add a symbolic amount
to each "service" and you will see a sharp drop in it's use, no use for
a service, the "administration" will wither. Keep the taxes stable to
pay for the deficit and in a few years we will be back in the black.
Jean
|
| 669.8 | | CSC32::S_BROOK | I just passed myself going in the other direction! | Tue Mar 30 1993 16:59 | 34 |
| > How to get out of it? just stop spending, how? add a symbolic amount
> to each "service" and you will see a sharp drop in it's use, no use for
> a service, the "administration" will wither. Keep the taxes stable to
> pay for the deficit and in a few years we will be back in the black.
I certainly agreed with your analysis up until this bit here ...
Administrators have this uncanny ability to keep their jobs and justify
their e xistence long after the need for them has gone ... a classic
case was described in this story ...
A town was split by a river, and the old bridge was rotten, so the town
decided that it was time to invest in a new bridge. The town council pondered
how they would pay for the bridge ... rather than tax everyone,
they decided to place a toll on the users.
So, they hired a tollkeeper, and after 3 months of operation, they found
that they were actually losing money. So, the council decided that they would
have to hire a manager to manage the 2 toll keepers. Well, the bridge tolls
went up to pay for the manager's salary, but they lost even more money.
The council then decided that they would have to set up a bridge commission to
monitor the activities of the manager and tollkeepers. After 3 more months
of losing even more money, they decided to hire a management consulting company.
Their instructions were to cut the losses ...
The management consultants required that they be held on retainer for this
job for 2 years. After the contract was signed, the consultants quickly gave
their first report ... it containerd 1 line ....
Eliminate the position of tollkeeper.
Stuart
|
| 669.9 | Cushy job... | POLAR::ROBINSONP | Fiscally challenged | Wed Mar 31 1993 10:05 | 6 |
|
Stuart, you would'nt be referring to the Autoroute running north of
Montreal, would you ?
Many 8*)
|
| 669.10 | | CSC32::S_BROOK | I just passed myself going in the other direction! | Wed Mar 31 1993 10:24 | 1 |
| Nope ... 'fraid not ...
|
| 669.11 | | CSC32::S_BROOK | I just passed myself going in the other direction! | Wed Mar 31 1993 11:01 | 1 |
| Nope ... 'fraid not ...
|
| 669.12 | Say What? | POLAR::ROBINSONP | Fiscally challenged | Wed Mar 31 1993 11:09 | 3 |
|
Is there an echo in here?
|
| 669.13 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Sick in a balanced sort of way | Wed Mar 31 1993 12:12 | 1 |
| Nope ... 'fraid not ...
|
| 669.14 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Sick in a balanced sort of way | Wed Mar 31 1993 12:12 | 1 |
| Nope ... 'fraid not ...
|
| 669.15 | Too Many polticians. | SIOG::EGRI | | Mon Apr 05 1993 08:00 | 24 |
| What about al these wonderful little trips they take? Didn't Brian come
over here to Ireland to "look for his roots"? Who financed that sojourn
just so Mulroney could make sure he was really Irish? Half the Irish
cabinet went over to the States for Paddy's Day, there were only a
handful of backbencers in O'Connell St. for the parade here in Dublin.
I don't think too many of them forked out for there own fares.
Which brings me to another question. I am Canadian and have lived here
for the best part of the last 16 years. I have seen alot of money
wasted by Irish politicians. This does not mean that I don't think
Canadian politicians don't do the same (pheww! 3 negatives in the same
sentence, does it make any sense to you out there?) The Irish
government represents slighlty over 3 million people, and its Dail
(Gaelic for "parliament", pronounced "dole") consists of 166 TDs
(Gaelic for MPs). My question is :
How many MPs are there in Ottawa to represent about 26 million people?
How many MNAs are the in the Quebec National Assembly? That question
because I am a Quebecer.
Many thanks.
Ted.
|
| 669.16 | | POLAR::RUSHTON | տ� | Thu Apr 15 1993 11:41 | 23 |
| <<The Irish government represents slighlty over 3 million people, and its Dail
<<consists of 166 TDs. My question is :
<< How many MPs are there in Ottawa to represent about 26 million people?
I think it's about 350 MP's for 26 million. So, if we scale things
down to a population of 3 million, Ireland should have only about 19
TD's. So who's going to pare back? Fianna Fiall or Fine Gael?
<<How many MNAs are the in the Quebec National Assembly? That question
<<because I am a Quebecer.
Can't answer that accurately, but from what I have seen on television
of sessions from the National Assembly, it looks like there's over 100
MNA's. That's for a population of about 8 million in Qu�bec. Again,
if we scale that down to the Irish population, there should only be
less than 40 TD's.
Cheers,
Pat
|
| 669.17 | | SIOG::EGRI | | Mon Apr 19 1993 09:15 | 9 |
| Thanks Pat. Of course there's no way that you can realistically scale
down in either country. Since both governments are committed to
creating jobs, it only seems logical that they both increase the number
of government officials and thereby hire more civil servants,
secretaries, researchers etc. etc.
That would be one way of easing unemployment, wouldn't it?
Ted.
|