Balancing Budgets

I was perusing the Globe and Mail's website a couple of minutes ago and encountered this:

So you wanna be finance minister? Try balancing Ottawa's books - The Globe and Mail

It's extremely similar to the balancing budget game that has been around for a couple of years, where you balance the United States' budget:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

I've like to try and generate a discussion regarding deficits and debt levels in the West. Every time I look at the news, that's the rage. Whether it's crippling levels of European instability or American blindness or Canadian incompetence.

Obviously, there are differing views on how exactly we should go about solving them based on our personal political viewpoints. It would be interesting to explain your reasoning behind how YOU would solve these deficits, and why you chose the items you did. Therefore:

Solved Canada's $25 billion deficit by:

- Raising the retirement age to 67 from 65. I think that considering that we're living longer and longer, it's a fair decision to make. Worth $4 billion.

- Restore the 2% GST tax cut made by the Harper Government, raising the GST to 7% from 5%. For something that isn't a huge individual rebate, it certainly costs a lot. Furthermore, cutting it was done for pure political gain. It doesn't stimulate the economy or anything like that. Worth $11.4 billion.

- Increase the federal corporate income tax rate by 1% to 16%. Canada's corporate tax rates are pretty low compared to many other countries. Hiking it a point won't change much, and the richest of us all can bear the burden. Worth $1.5 billion.

- Raise each of the marginal tax rates by one percentage point. I kind of struggled with this before deciding it was worth it. Worth $9.4 billion, bringing me to a $1.3 billion surplus.

- Abolish the Senate. It's a pointless unrepresentative rubber stamp riddled with cronyism. Worth $88 million.

- Eliminate partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses for corporations. It seems totally absurd that we even did something like this in the first place. Why should a corporation get a 50% refund on sending people to a sports game? Worth $180 million.

Final result is a $1.6 billion surplus. I generally tried to avoid blankly cutting funding to departments because they need to be reformed to consume less money or at least get more out of what we're paying, not just blindly cut off.

------------------------------------------

Solved the States' 2015 and 2030 shortfalls by choosing the options as such http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=0128nbr7 . $43 billion surplus in 2030.

A lot of my reasoning is the same regarding Social Security, and on raising taxes. A couple of things that might need to be explained are:

- I instituted a sales tax. Pretty much every other rich country in the world has one. The Americans are missing out on something that generates huge levels of revenue due entirely to the "NO MORE TAXES DURR" that many people have.

- Often times I chose more modern compromises in regards to restoring tax levels to pre-Bush levels primarily to protect the more vulnerable members of society.

- Bank Tax. If a society is going to be held liable and have to bail out their banks, then those banks better be paying for it when they have the chance.

- Carbon tax. Despite what some might guess, I'm a huge environmentalist. I'd like to put pressure on people to hurry it up and go nuclear. Greenhouse gas waits for no man.

-----------------------------

- If you've noticed, my only military cuts have been in regards to troop numbers in one case, and completely nothing in the other. If you don't know why after the way I putter about in SD, I don't know what to say.

Of course, you read the Globe and Mail xD

Having read through that, honestly, I think there are a lot of alternatives that have been left off. Legalization and regulation of marijuana or the regulation of prostitution are both viable options and are looming over the horizon as changes that will be coming to Canadian society sooner before later and while I can rationalize the reasons behind not adding them, because we really don't know how much we could possibly make, it's unseemly that they would not even attempt to estimate the possible benefits of these situations. Adding additional levels of taxation brackets isn't listed which was disappointing and reducing troop counts isn't listed as an available option either. The whole thing seems less thoroughly done than it could have been which is a bit disappointing.

But not quite as disappointing as our ruling government going from millions of dollars in surpluses to increasing deficits and the only reason they've said WOAH WE SHOULD CUT THIS OUT is because there has been a recession recently. This is BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD, WE NEED MORE CUTS Conservatives.

Oh I fully agree. I would've preferred to have a game that was at least about as complex as the one the NYTimes published.

One thing I would have liked to see would have been options regarding the funding of alternative energy projects and oil subsidies. Subsidizing oil is only beneficial in the short run, and it would be in our interest to do away with it.

But not quite as disappointing as our ruling government going from millions of dollars in surpluses to increasing deficits and the only reason they've said WOAH WE SHOULD CUT THIS OUT is because there has been a recession recently. This is BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD, WE NEED MORE CUTS Conservatives.

To be fair, a lot of our departments are pretty inefficient. The motivation behind deciding to cut their budgets is theoretically to force them to streamline in order to accomplish their functions.

Department inefficiencies cannot be the only thing blamed and even accepting a margin of inefficiency you cannot say that accounts for all or even most of the money that has been squandered by the Government. The government has made numerous poor choices over the past few years and it's hurt Canadians just as much the recession itself.

We've no reason to have to purchase stealth jets, for example. That's money that would be much better spent on education, health care or social security, and while I understand the purchase hasn't been made yet it's something that has been considered for nearly a decade.

Or we could bring up the 2 million dollars spent creation of a lake for the G8/20 summits, or the money put into the parks of the MP for Parry Sound-Muskoka that was supposed to be spent on security.

I'm not saying this as a finger pointing game, as I'm sure that any number of mistakes could be brought up about Liberals, but we've been nearly a decade without their rule.

I GOTTA GO NOW HANGING OUT WITH FRIENDS AND STUFF BUT YEAH.

Department inefficiencies cannot be the only thing blamed and even accepting a margin of inefficiency you cannot say that accounts for all or even most of the money that has been squandered by the Government. The government has made numerous poor choices over the past few years and it's hurt Canadians just as much the recession itself.

That's true, I was just pointing out that departmental inefficiencies are at least large enough to be worth dealing with.

They don't really give all the options I'd work with if I were actually in government but with the decisions present in these pages I was able to solve the deficits with the following.

Canada: result 5 billion$ surplus.

Elderly benefits and retirement programs

none

Goods and services tax

Extend GST to food
Restore 2 point GST cut

Income taxes

Increase corporate and small business tax rates (though I would increase corporate tax rates by more than 1%)

Raise all marginal tax rates by 1% (though I'd actually raise the tax rate for the rich by more.)

Government ministries and agencies

National Defence, RCMP, Senate and House of Commons cuts

Selected tax credits and deductions

Deductions for union dues, corporate meals and entertainment and clergy residence.

Children and families

none

Transportation

none

Foreign aid

cut budget for 10% (though I'd cut more)

Arts and culture

none

Personal finances and savings

Cut TSFAs

Though if these choices were adjusted I'd save a lot more.

I'd raise corporate tax rates to 25% giving me an extra 13.5 billion

I'd raise small business tax rates to 15% giving me an extra 1.89 billion

I'd raise the tax rates of the rich higher than 1% (can't calculate the savings with the information given.)

Cut national defence by 20% giving me an extra 2.1 billion.

Gradual scale back of foreign aid to 0, replaced with a per case system in response to famine and natural disasters with funding going to Canadian NGOs rather than foreign governments that are in many cases corrupt. An extra 4.59 billion (although some of this would go to NGOs.)

Adjusted total: over 27.08 billion surplus

In addition I'd make prostitution completely legal (rather than the half status that currently exists), marijuana legal, and consider the legalization of every other drug on a drug by drug basis. Would raise tax revenues and reduce prison costs. Remove oil subsidies. Although the amounts saved by such measures aren't calculable, its safe to say that the total would more than surpass 30 billion and maybe even reach 35 billion.

Use this to pay down Canada's debt and reduce the amount we pay on interest. Reinvest what we save on interest into public programs.

We have a federal debt of approximately 581 billion and it can be wiped out in a relatively short time if our government was disciplined.

Originally Posted by Great White North

I was perusing the Globe and Mail's website a couple of minutes ago and encountered this:

So you wanna be finance minister? Try balancing Ottawa's books - The Globe and Mail

It's extremely similar to the balancing budget game that has been around for a couple of years, where you balance the United States' budget:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

I've like to try and generate a discussion regarding deficits and debt levels in the West. Every time I look at the news, that's the rage. Whether it's crippling levels of European instability or American blindness or Canadian incompetence.

Obviously, there are differing views on how exactly we should go about solving them based on our personal political viewpoints. It would be interesting to explain your reasoning behind how YOU would solve these deficits, and why you chose the items you did. Therefore:

Solved Canada's $25 billion deficit by:

- Raising the retirement age to 67 from 65. I think that considering that we're living longer and longer, it's a fair decision to make. Worth $4 billion.

- Restore the 2% GST tax cut made by the Harper Government, raising the GST to 7% from 5%. For something that isn't a huge individual rebate, it certainly costs a lot. Furthermore, cutting it was done for pure political gain. It doesn't stimulate the economy or anything like that. Worth $11.4 billion.

- Increase the federal corporate income tax rate by 1% to 16%. Canada's corporate tax rates are pretty low compared to many other countries. Hiking it a point won't change much, and the richest of us all can bear the burden. Worth $1.5 billion.

- Raise each of the marginal tax rates by one percentage point. I kind of struggled with this before deciding it was worth it. Worth $9.4 billion, bringing me to a $1.3 billion surplus.

- Abolish the Senate. It's a pointless unrepresentative rubber stamp riddled with cronyism. Worth $88 million.

- Eliminate partial deduction of meals and entertainment expenses for corporations. It seems totally absurd that we even did something like this in the first place. Why should a corporation get a 50% refund on sending people to a sports game? Worth $180 million.

Final result is a $1.6 billion surplus. I generally tried to avoid blankly cutting funding to departments because they need to be reformed to consume less money or at least get more out of what we're paying, not just blindly cut off.

Huh, surprisingly, pretty much the same decisions I made for pretty much the same reasons.

I could potentially see reforming the senate, but that means rebuilding it from the ground up. One idea I've heard that might have some merit is having, I don't know, 10 seats per province/territory for the senate, and have it be an elected position. That means that all the cries of the small-population provinces being ignored will no longer hold and it can be actual "sober second thought".

I could potentially see reforming the senate, but that means rebuilding it from the ground up. One idea I've heard that might have some merit is having, I don't know, 10 seats per province/territory for the senate, and have it be an elected position. That means that all the cries of the small-population provinces being ignored will no longer hold and it can be actual "sober second thought".

The problem I see with this is the severe danger of the Senate becoming an expensive rubber stamp, instead of a relatively inexpensive one.

Reforming the Senate into an elected body will likely curse us with US-style gridlock politics. I don't think we need a second Parliament.

True, but we need some sort of oversight of parliament that isn't appointed by parliament. :/.

Originally Posted by John

True, but we need some sort of oversight of parliament that isn't appointed by parliament. :/.

Define oversight.

A while ago, Crab Helmet posted this concerning reform of the Senate (or rather for him the House of Lords) and the more I think about it the more I like it. Obviously it'd be more complicated than what's presented and within our nation it'd be a bit more difficult to have someone attend duties in the capital and maintain a career or job in BC or something, but having oversight, which I'll define as passing laws that are in the best interests of the Canadian people and being more than a rubber stamp for whichever government filled it with the most amount of friends, over the House of Commons is beneficial.

I wouldn't want an elected senate because it's simply another series of elections putting more politicians into offices with plump pensions.


Also we REALLY need election reform. .____.

That's actually a really good idea. The only problem I see with that is that people MUST become a senator if they are randomly selected. Unless you're willing to raise the monetary compensation that people receive, I don't see how that would ever take off.

It's pretty much impossible to maintain a career back home across the country and attend the Senate, so they'd need to be compensated for it. Certain jobs can be maintained over the internet or something (managing a business as a manager, psychology) but some can certainly not (medicine, carpentry). Unless the government was willing to facilitate a transfer (doctors get jobs at hospitals in Ottawa, dentists become part of government run practices), you'll have a lot of pissed off people.

Senators have a base salary of 130,000 dollars, which doesn't include the numerous benefits they get, additional pay for other roles within the Senate, or the allowances given to each member. Frankly all that is a bit too much, and while some professionals might be making less by being put into the role, I think tuning it down to a flat 100,000 (maybe including a clause to account for inflation) would be a good step in the right direction. I'd say less, but the people we'd want populating the ranks of the Senate would be the kind of people who were deliberately excluded from jury duty; judges, lawyers, previous law-makers, professors, police or former police, people who come from many walks of life but have made a display of improving their communities and are educated; are the kind of people who'd be making more than that.

It would be best if it was ten senators chosen from each province and then one from each territory; that'd leave us with 103 senators (a tiny bit less than the number we have now) and with an odd number of them so that there will always be a majority vote.


I don't know what you mean by compensating people though given the salary already made.

I know that drug abuse is peaked in my area, but here at least if you just taxed all the drugs sold here at the normal 8.75% sales tax, you'd have several million from my city of 120k people by itself annually.

The best way to fix budget is to get all of those who avoid paying their taxes to pay up what's dueCalifornia would be almost on budget if all of those who owe taxes paid them.

Originally Posted by Khal Drogo

I don't know what you mean by compensating people though given the salary already made.

I just meant that there are many people that would be taking a significant cut in pay.

For instance, given the national average income for doctors in medicine, they'd be taking in excess of a $100,000 cut in pay. Judges would suffer about the same. Lawyers would take a little less.

Even given the benefits there are associated with becoming a senator (gold plated pensions, allowances), many of these types of professionals would still be taking a net loss. You're forcing them to give up enough money to send a kid to university with money to spare.

I really don't see it as any worse than being forced into jury duty; people who live wage-to-bill aren't exactly going to be happy about losing money to do that and they've got more to lose there It comes down to civic duty really.

And if there is no compensation for jury duty, there should be.

Otherwise, there really isn't a comparison. Jury duty doesn't require you to quit your job and take a significant pay cut for the rest of the year (or even more if they order your term extended).

There is, it's just fairly menial, something akin to minimum wage. Which for someone making twenty bucks an hour as a plumber is a significant slip in funds.

What do jurors get paid?

It varies from province to province.

In British Columbia, they receive $50 a day and the cost of meals. In Nova Scotia, they get $40 a day.

In Ontario, they receive: zero for the first 10 days; $40 a day for the next 39 days; $100 a day after that.

We, the jury, need better pay - The Globe and Mail

I honestly don't see why these things:

Missing Work

Employers must give employees time off to attend jury selection and to serve as jurors. Under the Employment Standards Act, a juror is considered to be on unpaid leave for the period of jury duty. Although the employers are not legally obligated to pay employees for lost wages while on jury duty, the employee is considered to be in continuous employment for the purposes of calculating annual vacation, termination entitlements, as well as for pension, medical or other employee benefit plans. The employee is also entitled to all increases in wages and benefits which he or she would have received if not on jury duty. Further, the employer may not terminate an employee on jury duty, or change a condition of employment, without the employee’s written consent. As soon as jury duty ends, an employee must be returned to his or her former position or comparable position.


What if I am Receiving Employment Insurance Benefits?

Under the Employment Insurance Act, a person entitled to employment insurance benefits remains entitled to those benefits while engaged in jury service.


Fees and Expense Reimbursements

You may receive a fee for each day you serve as a juror, and you may be reimbursed for some expenses. You must keep all receipts.


Meals

Jurors are responsible for their own lunches during a trial. Tea and coffee will be served. When a jury is deliberating a verdict, necessary meals and accommodation will be provided.

Canadian Jury Duty

won't work as well for someone who is a lawyer or professor. I just don't think it's unreasonable for that to be asked of them for a few years, particularly if it was decided to put an age on it like 40+ mitigating the effects it may have on people with kids about to go into post-secondary schooling.

won't work as well for someone who is a lawyer or professor. I just don't think it's unreasonable for that to be asked of them for a few years, particularly if it was decided to put an age on it like 40+ mitigating the effects it may have on people with kids about to go into post-secondary schooling.

Again, because of sheer lack of compensation.

Even if you were to restrict who can serve to over a certain point of age, then it still raises the issue of them losing thousands of dollars that they could be using to pay off their debts or invest or go on vacation.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if you restricted it to those who are retired, but before that point it would still be quite the hit.

And they'd take a worse hit serving a jury.

Life, and indeed democracy, is not all about money. We are required to serve our country when it calls us, however it may call us, whether or not we like it. Being a senator in this scenario is the same as serving as a juror. It is a civic duty and it is what is required of us to serve and preserve the democracy we swear by.