Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

BC Budget


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#61 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

To me, it seems like this government is all media and marketing, and no policy or governance. Have they actually put forward any notable policy proposals since they brought in Clark as the new leader? Have they done anything worthwhile except ad buys (we can debate whether this is in fact worthwhile, but it is something they've done, for sure)? I've never voted NDP but unless there is a third-party candidate it doesn't look like I'm going to have much choice here.

If you examine the BC Dipper history, the Liberals by comparison look to be the best alternative. In politics you do not have to be great, just better than the other guys.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#62 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:48 PM

Yes, but it gets taxed when they want, which could be years after the money is already earned. Obviously this sort of scheme doesn't work for those who live paycheque to paycheque, but for the "1%", this represents a huge loss of revenue since a rich person could keep money in a corporation for years, investing it and generating more money without paying tax.

Moreover, this would make the consequences of income-spreading even more drastic. If, say, the guy were to make his kids shareholders and pay the dividends to them, he could ensure that they still in a low tax bracket and thus pay little income tax (or maybe none at all). Then, the money is still getting paid out and the government is getting far below what they should be getting in tax revenue.


You are presenting a choice that doesn't really exist. The corporation has excess cash if it has already taken advantage of all expansion and investment opportunities. In that case, it is sitting as cash, depreciating at the rate of inflation. Keeping cash depreciating at -2% in a corporation for 10 years and then taking a 30% tax hit on it is stupid when the alternative is to take a 35% hit today and then invest it at 8% for 10 years.
  • 0
Moo

#63 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:53 PM

Medical isn't free or cheap for that matter. Rates go up for everything when everyone expects a raise every year.

Red Herring? Hydro rates are relatively cheap compared to the rest of Canada or N.A. for that matter.


I know it's not cheap. I'm in Ontario and I don't have to pay any MSP though.

In BC, it sucks when you just barely make enough to "qualify" for paying MSP and don't have a job that will pay it for you.

I know Hydro rates are cheap. They're extremely cheap. That's why I posted - he was complaining that rates were going up and Hydro was going to be gouging BCers. If he took a look around he'd see that even a 50% increase would put BC in line with a lot of other places.
  • 0
Moo

#64 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,968 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

Christy Clark can not lead this province anywhere but down. And that's hard to do since the province has been going down hill since 2001. The Liberal party are full of inept people that dont have a clue. The Liberals main concern has always been to please their corporate supportors with back room deals. Now that they are behind in the polls they are trying anything and everything to grasp to power. Why do you think there has been such an exodus of long time Liberal politicians? They dont believe in Chrsity Clark. Neither do I and neither should anyone else.

Chritsy Clark is all tangled in the B.C. Rail scandal. From her brother to her ex-husband to Patrick Kinsella. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Rich Coleman is just a big thug who couldn't care less about BC residents except that they keep electing him and fatten his pension. Didn't he call Surrey council members and try to intimidate them into voting for the B.C. casino he wanted in Surrey?
  • 0

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#65 van_ws

van_ws

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:55 PM

Let us be frank here... no matter which party wins, the province of BC loses. The NDP and Liberals are both terrible choices. If you ask me, BC is fracked regardless. The prospect of a NDP government is downright scary. If you have the chance, move out, there are greener pastures elsewhere. Economy is going to tank, jobs lost, high taxes, low wages, high cost of living, etc.

Edited by van_ws, 20 February 2013 - 09:56 PM.

  • 4

#66 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

If you examine the BC Dipper history, the Liberals by comparison look to be the best alternative. In politics you do not have to be great, just better than the other guys.


Up until the HST fiasco I would have agreed with you, but now? I mean how hard is it to put your policies in your platform? That mess set us back years, and there's been nothing since but propaganda and press conferences.

On another note, what is going on with Vaughan Palmer lately? The guy is seriously out for blood.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#67 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:27 PM

Up until the HST fiasco I would have agreed with you, but now? I mean how hard is it to put your policies in your platform? That mess set us back years, and there's been nothing since but propaganda and press conferences.

On another note, what is going on with Vaughan Palmer lately? The guy is seriously out for blood.

The "HST fiasco" was bizarre and clearly demonstrated why tax policy should not be an exercise in direct democracy.

The Zalm was aided and abetted by the BC NDP in a campaign of misinformation. I would put as much of the blame on the NDP as the Liberals.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#68 Harbinger

Harbinger

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,198 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 05

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

The "HST fiasco" was bizarre and clearly demonstrated why tax policy should not be an exercise in direct democracy.

The Zalm was aided and abetted by the BC NDP in a campaign of misinformation. I would put as much of the blame on the NDP as the Liberals.



LMAO That's funny actually.
  • 3

Posted Image


#69 Lillooet_Hillbilly

Lillooet_Hillbilly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 11

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:38 PM

im still waiting for that 10% tax cut gordo said we'd get but took it back before he left office
  • 0

#70 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:47 AM

LMAO That's funny actually.


Seriously.
  • 0

#71 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:37 AM

I've never voted NDP but unless there is a third-party candidate it doesn't look like I'm going to have much choice here.


Green, Marijuana, Conservative, Libertarian, Communist, Reform, etc, etc...

http://www.elections...Information.pdf
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#72 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:16 PM

The BC Liberals may be bad but the BC Dippers are much worse.


you keep saying that every chance you get but have yet to back it, which seems strange coming from someone like who you normally has no problem with creating a long post.
  • 0

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#73 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:18 PM

you keep saying that every chance you get but have yet to back it, which seems strange coming from someone like who you normally has no problem with creating a long post.

I have backed it up numerous times.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#74 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

The "HST fiasco" was bizarre and clearly demonstrated why tax policy should not be an exercise in direct democracy.  

The Zalm was aided and abetted by the BC NDP in a campaign of misinformation.  I would put as much of the blame on the NDP as the Liberals.


yeah you're right what do the people know, who needs democracy anyways right? Let's try Facism instead, right? Yeah and let's blame the NDP for the Liberials horrible job (even the Liberials admitted this) in implementing the HST after saying earlier pre-election they wouldn't. When A gov't has such a dramatic change of heart they damn well better explain why and obviously the referdum results show they failed to do that, how is that the NDP's fault?
  • 0

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#75 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

you keep saying that every chance you get but have yet to back it, which seems strange coming from someone like who you normally has no problem with creating a long post.


He's not wrong. It's like being given the choice of having your testicles ripped off or having someone reach in through your arse and pull them out that way. Both are horrible choices but one is definitely worse than the other.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#76 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

yeah you're right what do the people know, who needs democracy anyways right? Let's try Facism instead, right? Yeah and let's blame the NDP for the Liberials horrible job (even the Liberials admitted this) in implementing the HST after saying earlier pre-election they wouldn't. When A gov't has such a dramatic change of heart they damn well better explain why and obviously the referdum results show they failed to do that, how is that the NDP's fault?

In the case of complex tax policy, the people know very little. As an outside observer Yukon economist Keith Halliday wrote in in his blog "Yukonomist" advance of the HST referendum:


In a strange turn of events, British Columbians who have successfully avoided economics classes their entire lives are now being subjected to a typical microeconomics final exam question: Which is better, a traditional sales tax like the old BC PST or a value-added tax like the new Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)?


A mail-in referendum is happening right now. What makes it different from an economics final exam is that voters have more than one professor.


There is an official “No” organization and another for “Yes.” Both are advertising vigorously, even going so far as to put election-style signs along the sides of the Stewart-Cassiar Highway for the benefit of voters in Dease Lake.


There is also an independent panel charged with opining on the choices. And finally, every think tank in Canada seems to have issued a report.


Tax policy is notoriously obscure and complex. In most countries, the choice of sales tax regime is left to the finance ministry and the legislature. This usually results in a tax like the HST, since most economists and tax experts view value-added taxes as much better than archaic sales taxes like the old BC PST. This is why nearly every country in Europe has an HST and not a PST.


It likely would have been the same in BC if the Liberal government in Victoria had not bungled the announcement of the tax, provoking a public backlash. Shortly after former BC premier Gordon Campbell announced the HST plan, one poll showed 82 per cent of British Columbians against it.


Now, new Premier Christy Clark is in damage control mode. To save the HST in the coming vote, she has announced a cut in the HST rate (which includes the five per cent federal GST) to 10 per cent from 12 per cent. She also raised corporate taxes, which is popular since that tax is invisible in the shops.


Meanwhile, disgraced former premier Bill Vander Zalm prowls the province successfully whipping up populist opposition against the HST. Like Vander Zalm, the BC NDP also prefers the old PST. It’s hard to tell if they really think the old PST was so great or if they just see a fine opportunity to attack their political opponents.


But let’s ignore the petty squabbles of politics and dive into the gripping world of tax economics.


The HST’s biggest advantage is that it is, in economist-talk, “non-distortionary.” Except for a few special things like alcohol and tobacco, it is generally harmful to productivity for government taxes to encourage some kinds of economic activity and discourage others. The old PST exempted haircuts, realtor commissions, massage therapy, management consulting and most other services, meaning that furniture makers, sporting goods stores and forestry companies had to carry the province’s tax burden. No one would design a new tax this way.


The PST also hurt exporters, since they had to pay PST on their supplies. This meant their costs were higher when they competed with Alberta or Washington companies. In effect, buyers in other jurisdictions were paying tax to the BC government. Taxing your own exports is not a strategy most countries pursue. The HST, in contrast, gives exporters a credit for the HST they pay on exported goods.


Another HST advantage is that it taxes consumption rather than investment and savings. This is why economists often prefer HST over corporate income taxes and especially taxes on capital. It seems silly to tax the profits of small business investors, and to let the rich in West Vancouver pay no taxes on the architect services for their million-dollar renovation.


A broad HST also attacks income tax evasion, a major issue in a province with such a big drug business. The HST gives grow-op millionaires a chance to contribute to public services in the province. Now they will pay tax on their mega-home purchases and airline tickets, and not just their heat lamps and hydroponic gear.


HST also saves the waste of having two different sales tax bureaucracies.


Finally, the HST is also more socially progressive than the old PST. This is because low-income citizens will get a rebate of up to $320 per year. Not a huge amount, but still better than the PST which had no low-income rebate.


It is of course preferable to have no sales tax at all. But that’s only possible if you have lots of oil money (Alberta and Alaska) or transfer payments (the Yukon). If you do need a sales tax, the HST is far superior to the old PST.



I have said nothing about fascism.

I pointed out above the timeline on the change of policy on HST implementation that took place after the provincial election.

As I have said numerous times in the past I favour representative democracy where at a general election you consider the whole body of work of a government and decide whether to throw the rascals out. And replace them with a new batch of rascals.

I have been against the "direct democracy" experiments (initiative and recall and referendum) as implemented in BC - they do not fit our system.

As far as the NDP as political columnist Mike Smyth noted much like the BC NDP opposition to the HST, they have confirmed that if elected the BC Hydro smart meters will stay as discussed in another thread.
http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2KXIq3YsD

The NDP was well aware that the HST was good tax policy and made eminent economic sense but worked behind the scenes to undermine it using NDP insiders and resources and assisting The Zalm in his campaign of misinformation.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#77 sedated

sedated

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,728 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 05

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

The HST thing was a joke. People in the NDP saw that people didn't know very much about the HST, and spun it in their favour to attack the Liberals over it. Same deal with the smart meter thing. "We don't like them either.. but we won't do anything unless you vote for us."

It's kind of made things suck in BC as far as government stuff goes. The NDP can't seem to win in a fight unless they're doing something to try and make the Liberals look bad. Seems like they've more or less given up trying to actually run in a more logical way, and just kind of sit around trying to get lazy votes. Both parties have sucked here, there's just no alternative. NDP has a horrible history here, and they just sit there trying to stab the Liberals in the back and resort to "We'll only do stuff for you if you vote for us."

Still a shame about the HST. It cost so much money to remove it, and it was actually nice as far as a tax went. As much as you can blame the Liberals for not giving enough details, it's even worse that most people shot it down without knowing anything about it either.
  • 0

#78 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:17 PM

The HST thing was a joke. People in the NDP saw that people didn't know very much about the HST, and spun it in their favour to attack the Liberals over it. Same deal with the smart meter thing. "We don't like them either.. but we won't do anything unless you vote for us."

It's kind of made things suck in BC as far as government stuff goes. The NDP can't seem to win in a fight unless they're doing something to try and make the Liberals look bad. Seems like they've more or less given up trying to actually run in a more logical way, and just kind of sit around trying to get lazy votes. Both parties have sucked here, there's just no alternative. NDP has a horrible history here, and they just sit there trying to stab the Liberals in the back and resort to "We'll only do stuff for you if you vote for us."

Still a shame about the HST. It cost so much money to remove it, and it was actually nice as far as a tax went. As much as you can blame the Liberals for not giving enough details, it's even worse that most people shot it down without knowing anything about it either.


And who's responsibility is to inform them? Blame whoever you want for spreading misinformation, the Liberals did a piss poor job of explaining it themselves.
  • 0

#79 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

And who's responsibility is to inform them? Blame whoever you want for spreading misinformation, the Liberals did a piss poor job of explaining it themselves.


My problem with this line of thinking is that while it's certainly a "-" for the Liberals, it's not a "+" for the NDP. Neither party deserves any "+" credit for the mishandling of the HST but they both deserve "-"...so how does that equate to supporting/voting for EITHER of them?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#80 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:26 PM

The HST thing was a joke. People in the NDP saw that people didn't know very much about the HST, and spun it in their favour to attack the Liberals over it. Same deal with the smart meter thing. "We don't like them either.. but we won't do anything unless you vote for us."

It's kind of made things suck in BC as far as government stuff goes. The NDP can't seem to win in a fight unless they're doing something to try and make the Liberals look bad. Seems like they've more or less given up trying to actually run in a more logical way, and just kind of sit around trying to get lazy votes. Both parties have sucked here, there's just no alternative. NDP has a horrible history here, and they just sit there trying to stab the Liberals in the back and resort to "We'll only do stuff for you if you vote for us."

Still a shame about the HST. It cost so much money to remove it, and it was actually nice as far as a tax went. As much as you can blame the Liberals for not giving enough details, it's even worse that most people shot it down without knowing anything about it either.

As Michael Smyth points out in a column on the BC NDP reaction to the budget - a breathraking Adrian Dix Two Step Shuffle.

Adrian Dix attacks budget, but offers non-answers



Adrian Dix, the man who would be premier, took a sledgehammer Wednesday to the Liberal government's newly balanced budget.


The NDP leader slammed the modest 2.6-per-cent increase in health-care spending, saying it won't meet public demand for services, so it's effectively a cut.


He attacked the $800-million "fire sale" of government assets, criticized the four-per-cent hike in MSP premiums and accused the government of tabling a "bogus budget" that's not really balanced at all.


So how would Dix do it differently if he wins the May election?


Let's run them down one at a time, shall we? But I'll warn you now: the guy is slipperier than a greased weasel.


MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN: Dix called the increase in MSP premiums "a problem" and said the government "is increasingly addicted to middle-class tax increases." So would he cancel the premium hike? Or perhaps bring in a smaller increase instead?


"We have to assess what's in the budget, the impact that might have on a platform," he non-answered. "We're going to have to make some difficult choices."


HEALTH CARE: The Liberals are increasing health-care spending by $2.4 billion over the next three years. Dix says it's not enough. So would he spend more?


"We're going to have to look at exactly those questions," he said. "What we have here is a budget that doesn't fund even basic initiatives put forward by the premier. We have to review that and draw the appropriate conclusions."


ASSET SALES: The government plans to sell $800 million worth of Crown land and buildings, which Dix called "very problematic."


Will he cancel the asset sales if he becomes premier in May?


"It's not a question of cancelling them — they haven't happened," he said."The question is: Is the government going to come through? Is it a serious commitment to sell assets? That's the question we have to look at."


A BALANCED BUDGET: Sounds like Dix wants to spend more money than the Liberals. He's critical of revenue measures like the asset sales. And he thinks the Liberals' "balanced" budget is really a deficit, anyway.


So would he bring in a deficit budget? How many deficits would he bring in before balancing the budget? How big would his deficits be?


"We're going to review this. If we come in, we'll have to assess the situation we have. What we have is a budget that is obviously not a balanced budget. We're going to have to deal with the very serious fiscal situation."


Translation of all the above gobbledygook: Dix plans to win the election by saying as little as possible, accuse the Liberals of lying about the province's finances, and then bring in a series of deficit budgets.

http://www.theprovince.com/health/Adrian+attacks+budget+offers+answers/7995029/story.html#ixzz2LZD4xa1f

It is hilarious for Dix to claim the Liberals are not being truthful when as Glen Clark's Chief of Staff he piloted through the BC NDP's infamous fudge-it budget. Remember that?

It was discovered after the election, that the balanced budgets for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years on which Clark had campaigned were not, in fact, balanced but actually deficits. And that there had also been a bookmaking sleight of hand that was undisclosed at the time of the election whereby the Clark government took a large amount of debt and shifted it onto Crown Corporations so as to create a perception of "surpluses".

And who was there up to his elbows in those shenanigans? None other than Adrian Dix.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#81 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:35 PM

My problem with this line of thinking is that while it's certainly a "-" for the Liberals, it's not a "+" for the NDP. Neither party deserves any "+" credit for the mishandling of the HST but they both deserve "-"...so how does that equate to supporting/voting for EITHER of them?


It doesn't. I didn't say that.
  • 0

#82 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:42 PM

As Michael Smyth points out in a column on the BC NDP reaction to the budget - a breathraking Adrian Dix Two Step Shuffle.  


Adrian Dix attacks budget, but offers non-answers



Adrian Dix, the man who would be premier, took a sledgehammer Wednesday to the Liberal government's newly balanced budget.


The NDP leader slammed the modest 2.6-per-cent increase in health-care spending, saying it won't meet public demand for services, so it's effectively a cut.


He attacked the $800-million "fire sale" of government assets, criticized the four-per-cent hike in MSP premiums and accused the government of tabling a "bogus budget" that's not really balanced at all.


So how would Dix do it differently if he wins the May election?


Let's run them down one at a time, shall we? But I'll warn you now: the guy is slipperier than a greased weasel.


MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN: Dix called the increase in MSP premiums "a problem" and said the government "is increasingly addicted to middle-class tax increases." So would he cancel the premium hike? Or perhaps bring in a smaller increase instead?


"We have to assess what's in the budget, the impact that might have on a platform," he non-answered. "We're going to have to make some difficult choices."


HEALTH CARE: The Liberals are increasing health-care spending by $2.4 billion over the next three years. Dix says it's not enough. So would he spend more?


"We're going to have to look at exactly those questions," he said. "What we have here is a budget that doesn't fund even basic initiatives put forward by the premier. We have to review that and draw the appropriate conclusions."


ASSET SALES: The government plans to sell $800 million worth of Crown land and buildings, which Dix called "very problematic."


Will he cancel the asset sales if he becomes premier in May?


"It's not a question of cancelling them — they haven't happened," he said."The question is: Is the government going to come through? Is it a serious commitment to sell assets? That's the question we have to look at."


A BALANCED BUDGET: Sounds like Dix wants to spend more money than the Liberals. He's critical of revenue measures like the asset sales. And he thinks the Liberals' "balanced" budget is really a deficit, anyway.


So would he bring in a deficit budget? How many deficits would he bring in before balancing the budget? How big would his deficits be?


"We're going to review this. If we come in, we'll have to assess the situation we have. What we have is a budget that is obviously not a balanced budget. We're going to have to deal with the very serious fiscal situation."


Translation of all the above gobbledygook: Dix plans to win the election by saying as little as possible, accuse the Liberals of lying about the province's finances, and then bring in a series of deficit budgets.

http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2LZD4xa1f

It is hilarious for Dix to claim the Liberals are not being truthful when as Glen Clark's Chief of Staff he piloted through the BC NDP's infamous fudge-it budget.  Remember that?  

It was discovered after the election, that the balanced budgets for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years on which Clark had campaigned were not, in fact, balanced but actually deficits.  And  that there had also been a bookmaking sleight of hand that was undisclosed at the time of the election whereby the Clark government took a large amount of debt and shifted it onto Crown Corporations so as to create a perception of "surpluses".  

And who was there up to his elbows in those shenanigans?  None other than Adrian Dix.


The reporter refers to Dix as "a greased weasel", yup seems like a fair unbiased article to me :)
  • 1

Play Clash on Clans on your phone? Join the CDC Clan "happycanuck".


"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/


#83 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:45 PM

The whole 'who lied worse' debate is ridiculous. Both sides have. Ok, so they are all liars. Then let's go based on their ideas/platform. It's pretty obvious the Liberals have run out of ideas seeing as they are now forwarding the oppositions ideas.

What we really need is an actual alternative
  • 0

#84 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

The whole 'who lied worse' debate is ridiculous. Both sides have. Ok, so they are all liars. Then let's go based on their ideas/platform. It's pretty obvious the Liberals have run out of ideas seeing as they are now forwarding the oppositions ideas.

What we really need is an actual alternative

And as Michael Smyth points out that is not the BC NDP.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#85 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:50 PM

The reporter refers to Dix as "a greased weasel", yup seems like a fair unbiased article to me :)

He is a columnist... and in the past Smyth has been an equal opportunity critic, having done hatchet jobs on various BC Liberals.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#86 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,047 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:56 PM

What we really need is an actual alternative


Ding, ding, ding!

THAT is what we should be discussing, not who lies less or is the lesser of two evils between two out of touch parties, neither of who deserve our time, let alone our votes.
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#87 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,892 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:00 PM

The NDP was well aware that the HST was good tax policy and made eminent economic sense but worked behind the scenes to undermine it using NDP insiders and resources and assisting The Zalm in his campaign of misinformation.


I'm not sure what the situation was in the lower mainland, but here in the northwest, the NDP weren't operating behind the scenes at all. They were right out front.

Both the local MLAs (Gary Coons and Robin Austin) ran weeks worth of radio ads, calling the HST a "tax grab" and accusing Gordon Campbell of "lying" about introducing it.

Since regular citizens such as myself and Wetcoaster, are well aware of the timeline leading up to the introduction of the HST, one has to wonder how it is possible that duly elected MLAs could be ignorant of it. (for those who have been living under a rock, or others who refuse to believe the truth, the Liberals originally said no to the HST, because it would be too expensive to implement. It was around this point that Campbell was asked if he had any plans to introduce the HST. The answer at the time was "no". That all changed when the federal government negotiated a deal with Ontario which included monies to cover the transition costs. Knowing full well that the HST is a superior system to the old PST/GST, the Liberals accepted the deal)

It begs the question: Did Coons and Austin honestly not know what the timeline was, (inexcusable for an elected official, IMHO) or did they knowingly spread misinformation in order to defeat a policy, for no other reason than the fact that it was introduced by the BC Liberals.

In either case, the NDP took an active role in costing the taxpayers of BC an enormous amount of money, while at the same time, forcing a huge step backwards in tax policy.

This is something that is going to cost the province a lot of money for a long time. Are you really sure these are the guys you want in power come May?

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 21 February 2013 - 02:02 PM.

  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#88 ahzdeen

ahzdeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,569 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 03

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:07 PM

As Michael Smyth points out in a column on the BC NDP reaction to the budget - a breathraking Adrian Dix Two Step Shuffle.

Adrian Dix attacks budget, but offers non-answers



Adrian Dix, the man who would be premier, took a sledgehammer Wednesday to the Liberal government's newly balanced budget.


The NDP leader slammed the modest 2.6-per-cent increase in health-care spending, saying it won't meet public demand for services, so it's effectively a cut.


He attacked the $800-million "fire sale" of government assets, criticized the four-per-cent hike in MSP premiums and accused the government of tabling a "bogus budget" that's not really balanced at all.


So how would Dix do it differently if he wins the May election?


Let's run them down one at a time, shall we? But I'll warn you now: the guy is slipperier than a greased weasel.


MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN: Dix called the increase in MSP premiums "a problem" and said the government "is increasingly addicted to middle-class tax increases." So would he cancel the premium hike? Or perhaps bring in a smaller increase instead?


"We have to assess what's in the budget, the impact that might have on a platform," he non-answered. "We're going to have to make some difficult choices."


HEALTH CARE: The Liberals are increasing health-care spending by $2.4 billion over the next three years. Dix says it's not enough. So would he spend more?


"We're going to have to look at exactly those questions," he said. "What we have here is a budget that doesn't fund even basic initiatives put forward by the premier. We have to review that and draw the appropriate conclusions."


ASSET SALES: The government plans to sell $800 million worth of Crown land and buildings, which Dix called "very problematic."


Will he cancel the asset sales if he becomes premier in May?


"It's not a question of cancelling them — they haven't happened," he said."The question is: Is the government going to come through? Is it a serious commitment to sell assets? That's the question we have to look at."


A BALANCED BUDGET: Sounds like Dix wants to spend more money than the Liberals. He's critical of revenue measures like the asset sales. And he thinks the Liberals' "balanced" budget is really a deficit, anyway.


So would he bring in a deficit budget? How many deficits would he bring in before balancing the budget? How big would his deficits be?


"We're going to review this. If we come in, we'll have to assess the situation we have. What we have is a budget that is obviously not a balanced budget. We're going to have to deal with the very serious fiscal situation."


Translation of all the above gobbledygook: Dix plans to win the election by saying as little as possible, accuse the Liberals of lying about the province's finances, and then bring in a series of deficit budgets.

http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2LZD4xa1f

It is hilarious for Dix to claim the Liberals are not being truthful when as Glen Clark's Chief of Staff he piloted through the BC NDP's infamous fudge-it budget. Remember that?

It was discovered after the election, that the balanced budgets for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years on which Clark had campaigned were not, in fact, balanced but actually deficits. And that there had also been a bookmaking sleight of hand that was undisclosed at the time of the election whereby the Clark government took a large amount of debt and shifted it onto Crown Corporations so as to create a perception of "surpluses".

And who was there up to his elbows in those shenanigans? None other than Adrian Dix.


So, to sum up, Dix says "budget is crap, we need more spending." And when asked about it he responds with "we don't know enough about the budget to tell you what we'd do otherwise." Yup, sounds like the NDP to me. Screaming at the top of their lungs that everything the government does is wrong and corrupt, but offers nothing constructive.
  • 0

#89 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

Every new government that gets in says" Ohh crap the books are worse than we believed" thus having the NDP say "We will need to look at the books" is actually very sensible.
  • 0

#90 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,892 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:38 PM

Every new government that gets in says" Ohh crap the books are worse than we believed" thus having the NDP say "We will need to look at the books" is actually very sensible.


It's also convenient. This way Dix doesn't actually have to run on a platform, he just has to criticize everything that the government does.

Good work, if you can get it...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.