# Ont Tories "new" election platform



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well, here is the link to Tim Hudak's new election platform. A 30 page
document called "Changebook".

Tim "sez" vote for me.... and you could get all this...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/immigrants-key-tory-victory-ontario-kenney-tells-provincial-182409166.html

so....let's hear it from the voters out there! (opinions from non-residents and those who may be incarcerated... welcome) 

1. Are you in favour of any.... or all of his proposals?

2. If you are Ont gummint employee...how does the proposed cuts
to the "bloated public sector" going to affect you and your family?

3. If you are a teacher, how is banning cellphones in class going to help
you besides reduce the interruptions of cell phones ringing? Don't you
have some authority as a teacher to tell the cell phone user to leave the
class and not bring it back in? 

4. Do you think that McGuinty (if relected) would continue raising taxes?

5. So if we (as voters) get rid of the "raccoon who keeps tipping over
trash cans (McGuinty), and Tim isn't going to (read his lips) RAISE taxes..
...where is the money for extra education and health care, infrastructure
spending going to come from? 

a) Just tack it on to the provincial debt and worry about it later?
b) gradually introduce new creative fund raising methods after becoming
premier..

Finally, if you had a chance to get elected..what what you do to 
help families cope with rising costs, yet try and reduce taxation?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Other than the questionable math involved in turning a budget with a 3% deficit to black after sizable tax cuts while leaving 70% of the budget untouched We're talking 30 - 40% cuts in spending outside health and education. Are we going to see another Walkerton because we thought we could save a few bucks? Picking arbitrary spending limits and cutting down to them regardless of the value of the programs being cuts strikes me as dumb. Either the spending is adding value or it's not--make that assesment on its merits, not on a goal to save some fixed dollar amount.

The main objectionable proposal is income splitting for spouses. It's a huge tax cut for relatively well-off single-income couples. I don't see how it's justified from a tax fairness perspective. It dings single parents with the same income who don't have a spouse at home (who is adding value there by taking care of the house and perhaps providing child care).

If you want to cut taxes, cut income taxes across the board. I think many people will get excited about this income splitting proposal when they are not the ones who will benefit. It's the republican trick of convincing middle class voters that their interests are best served by giving unjustified tax breaks to rich people.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Other than the questionable math involved in turning a budget with a 3% deficit to black after sizable tax cuts while leaving 70% of the budget untouched We're talking 30 - 40% cuts in spending outside health and education.


Well this election platform is a proposal, done at a brainstorming table.
Math is not usually a big factor when the initial proposals (promises)
are tabled. The idea is to get it out there for public consumption first,
get some reaction, and conduct some polls to test the voter pulse.
Once they get some feed back between June and September/October,
there could be some media announcements made.

I'm sure McGuinty is not just standing by without his strategy being worked
on..he's just going to wait and see how the public reacts to Hudaks
platform and then counteract with one of his own. 
The math and whether these can be implemented when the time comes
is an entirely different matter. Election platforms are not cast in stone..
modifications may be necessary to achieve the ideas. 




> The main objectionable proposal is income splitting for spouses*. It's a huge tax cut for relatively well-off single-income couples*. I don't see how it's justified from a tax fairness perspective. It dings single parents with the same income who don't have a spouse at home (who is adding value there by taking care of the house and perhaps providing child care).


Targetting a percentage of the voter population...DINKs (Double Income
No Kids) maybe?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

DINKs wouldn't benefit in a significant way, unless one of the spouses would rather not work at all.

Income splitting is paying people not to work. I thought people were generally against paying poor people not to work (welfare). Paying relatively well-off people not to work--fantastic.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> DINKs wouldn't benefit in a significant way, unless one of the spouses would rather not work at all.
> 
> *Income splitting is paying people not to work*. I thought people were generally against paying poor people not to work (welfare). Paying relatively well-off people not to work--fantastic.


How so Andrew? Income splitting is allowing a two income family to pool
their earnings in a way that provides the most tax relief to them.
Individually, each one would be (probably) paying more taxes..unless
certain allowable tax deductions modify their tax payable.

A single parent on welfare, does not pay any taxes (even as a part-time
employee at a fast food restaurant), they usually have enough deductions that
under 20K of taxable income, they contribute NOTHING in tax payable
or the bare minimum tax payable for healthcare.

So paying people not to work, does not hold much water in this argument.
People choose not to work for economic or their own personal decisions.
A single mom on welfare with one to three kids, is barely able to make ends meet these days, so in essence, even though she is working for society
to bring up the next generation of taxpayers, she is not contributing that
much to the income tax coffers as say..two DINKs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Say you have a couple with one spouse earning 90 and the other 50. Say the average taxes on the second spouse are 20%, or $10k tax bill. If that spouse chooses not to work, the government will allow the couple to split their income, reducing their total tax bill by over $10k. Loss in tax revenue is something like $20k, and their take home pay falls by only $30k. It's a tax subsidy for high income couples to have one spouse not work. It's a disincentive to work. I think we should be reducing disincentives to work, not making new ones.

It also screws over unmarried individuals, for no good reason.

Look, no one likes to pay taxes. I would love to have a $100k refundable tax credit for unmarried white guys 25-35 years of age. I mean, I work, I contribute to society--I deserve it, right? 

We as a society want to have nice things. That costs money. So people need to pay taxes. Some people have a lot of money and can make more with relatively less effort than others. We need to decide how to split that tax burden in a fair way that is not too economically inefficient. A stay-at-home-spouse tax credit is just plain dumb. It's paying that spouse with someone else's taxes to stay at home, when that person could instead be productively employed.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

they should let the public school teacher's smack a little more sense into the kids God knows they have the urge!!!! My friends kids seem to get away with a lot more miss behaving then my generation ever did. My generation and my parents seemed to turn out alright. I'll have to see what the lib's are running on first ..NDP i just can't ever consider... Being a decently employed single male without kids I doubt either party will offer anything that will help me individually...It'll prob come down to which party has a more believable way to cut the deficits..where are my decoder glasses to look through they're plans?? !!

Cutting public jobs will probably be just not hiring as many replacements when people retire (it would be close to 2% I'd guess). It would be very nice to see politican's pay decreased when they can't meet their commitments (accountability)...however i'm sure they'd be enough fudge factors involved it'd rarely happen...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

DanFo said:


> they should let the public school teacher's smack a little more sense into the kids God knows they have the urge!!!! My friends kids seem to get away with a lot more miss behaving then my generation ever did.


..and you know why that is? Because the kids have more rights in the
classroom than teachers. Years ago, when I was in grade school. I got
the strap for "talking back" (arguing about a project) and yes it hurt..
but I think it did me some good to learn to respect peoples property and
maybe opinions too. Today, the kids don't even get a slap on the hand
anymore..that would be considered abuse and the teacher could get 
fired or even sued by the parents. How ridiculous our education system
has become these days!



> Being a decently employed single male without kids I doubt either party will offer anything that will help me individually...It'll prob come down to which party has a more believable way to cut the deficits..where are my decoder glasses to look through they're plans?? !!


No need for decoders..it's all election rhetoric that will be heating up in
in the next 2 months or so. While there could be some relief..if you're
a single male..you will still pay your "fair share" of taxes. 



> Cutting public jobs will probably be just not hiring as many replacements when people retire (it would be close to 2% I'd guess). It would be very nice to see politican's pay decreased when they can't meet their commitments (accountability)...however i'm sure they'd be enough fudge factors involved it'd rarely happen...


You mean "salary to commensurate with experience?"..ha! ha!..that's for
the business sector only...gov't jobs don't depend on accountability or
performance..gov'ts are there to redistribute income...and in most cases
in the most inefficient way possible..because gov'ts can't go bankrupt..
they just pile on debt and deficits for the next generation.


----------



## gemma119 (Apr 6, 2009)

I'm voting for Mike Harris at Magna! He never promises the world on a silver(unpaid) platter.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What......no chicken in every pot?


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

I think that he was right to call his platform the "ChangeBook" since it reads more like the (also ran) blackberry PlayBook than an Ipad game changer.

It is nice and safe and does nothing exiting and it clearly picks good politics over good policy.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> What......no chicken in every pot?


It's Hudak..not Hoover and its 2011 not 1928...

online extraction:
It wasn't just chicken. During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."
<end of online extraction>


Well Hoover won the election.in '28, but then the big stock market crash and depression of '29 kinda put a damper on things. Still in the depression era..
he was replaced by FDR in '32. 

but..fear not..IF Hudak gets in..there will be HST cuts for every household for electricity and heating...
..and the cons will come around to take out yer garbage to the curb..
and maybe mow yer lawns too as a public service..
and free chicken soup for all....

ahhhhhh..UTOPIA..I dreamed about it last night!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Tim Hudak has hitherto been a nobody, very unimpressive.
John Tory would have made a better premier, IMO.
However, I am not writing him off yet.
For all you know, he may surprise us.

Looking at his platform in that link above, there are a lot of things that make sense in there.
Sure, there's the usual dose of publicity, rhetoric and populism but then there are many things in there that IMO are required.
And it must be asked why the present administration has not done the same things, or even promised them.

Here are the things I like:
- Shrink the size of cabinet by 20 per cent
- Dock the pay of his ministers that don't meet their budget targets
- Shrink Ontario's "bloated" public sector and bring those salaries in line with "private-sector realities" 
- Income splitting (which, btw, is not Hudak's original idea - the Harper conservatives have proposed the same at the federal level once the budget is balanced).
- Cut the 8% from the HST from home energy bills
- Crack down on health-care fraud by requiring patients to provide OHIP cards with photo IDs, and put those who help themselves to free health care with a fake, forged or stolen ID in jail

If he delivers on even half the promises, it'd be worthwhile voting for him.
And a 50% delivery record would be a 100% better record than the current administration's record, IMO.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Tim Hudak has hitherto been a nobody, very unimpressive.
> John Tory would have made a better premier, IMO.
> However, I am not writing him off yet.
> For all you know, he may surprise us.


I happened to be watching Global last Sunday and came across a panel
discussion with Leslie Roberts and John Tory and a couple of others that
I don't recognize. He didn't want to comment too much negative against
Hudak, but he more or less felt that some of the ChangeBook ideas are
going to be tough to implement.

Anyway,,the good ship Ontario (Titanic) is headed for a severe fiscal crash
if something isn't done..Captain Hudak better be a good at steering (if he
gets elected). 



> Sure, there's the usual dose of publicity, rhetoric and populism but then there are many things in there that IMO are required.
> And it must be asked why the present administration has not done the same things, or even promised them.


Well for one thing the Samsung green power scheme (windfarms) is a done deal..you simply can't back out of that without severe penalties..and we all remember the EH101 helio deal that the Libs killed, and there were hundreds of millions to pay in cancellation penalties on that deal, because the contract was already signed..and work had started on them. 



> Here are the things I like:
> - Shrink the size of cabinet by 20 per cent
> - Dock the pay of his ministers that don't meet their budget targets
> - Shrink Ontario's "bloated" public sector and bring those salaries in line with "private-sector realities"


The first two make perfect sense. The last one is not that easy..unless
you pay out HUGE severance to those that you want to get rid of..it's
not going to be easy. Remember Eleanor Clitheroe (sp?) (CEO of the old Ont
Hydro)..they dismissed her, she sued them and got millions in salary that
she was entitled to...I don't remember what she got dismissed for..
but she won and then went after Ont for her pension entitlement..
Not that easy today to dump a gov't employee..unless they have their
magic retirement number (85?). 



> - Cut the 8% from the HST from home energy bills
> - Crack down on health-care fraud by requiring patients to provide OHIP cards with photo IDs, and put those who help themselves to free health care with a fake, forged or stolen ID in jail


Absolutely. Cutting out the PST on the energy bills will help a lot..it was
a bad move on McGuinty's part to put that on electricity and home heating..
that will come back to bite him in the a$$ at election day. 

As far as OHIP fraud..they should force all OHIP users to get new cards
with pictures and stop using those easy to forge red& white cards.
What is wrong with OHIP these days?. A.very inefficient system and
Americans come up here to take advantage of our OHIP by using OHIP
cards from people here who assist them in this fraud.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Anyway,,the good ship Ontario (Titanic) is headed for a severe fiscal crash


Thanks to the current administration, which is one of the most disastrous, provincial or federal, that I have recollection of.
Except, perhaps, Bob Rae.



> The first two make perfect sense. The last one is not that easy..unless
> you pay out HUGE severance to those that you want to get rid of..it's
> not going to be easy.


But implementing the budget cuts requires it.
There is no other viable way of suddently finding billions of $$ out of the thin blue sky.
It is not hard because it's hard to implement, but because it is/will be an extremely unpopular move.

Given the preponderance of public sector (in different shapes and forms like teachers' unions, garbage collectors, police services, health care workers, etc.) in Ontario, such a move is almost certain to ensure non-election or (if somehow elected) preclusion from re-election and a extremely volatile administration.
Therefore, even though I support such a platform, I have slim hopes of it being implemented to the degree it should.



> Not that easy today to dump a gov't employee..unless they have their
> magic retirement number (85?).


I suspect a lot of it will be done by reducing future hiring and future pay/benefits.
Even though I may vote for such a platform, I don't advocate no-cause termination of current employees, cuts/reduction in promised benefits, and changes to existing employment contracts.
That is a receipe for disaster, and totally unfair.

It is better implemented by reduced future hiring and reduced pay/benefits for future employees.



> Absolutely. Cutting out the PST on the energy bills will help a lot..it was
> a bad move on McGuinty's part to put that on electricity and home heating..
> that will come back to bite him in the a$$ at election day.


What about the HST on gasoline?
That added 8% to the price at the pumps and a sweet deal for the provincial govt.



> As far as OHIP fraud..they should force all OHIP users to get new cards with pictures and stop using those easy to forge red& white cards.
> What is wrong with OHIP these days?. A.very inefficient system and
> Americans come up here to take advantage of our OHIP by using OHIP
> cards from people here who assist them in this fraud.


Agreed, it is a huge problem.
I normally don't like too much govt. regulation and prying into private lives, but in this case, I believe federal and provincial systems need to be synchronized such that valid residency of an individual can be tested against CIC and/or CBSA records.
The OHIP cards should contain all the information, including the picture, encoded in the barcode.
That will prevent falsification of the picture.
Not sure if technology allows it, but I don't know why not - if all the personal data can be encoded, the picture may also be, after all it's just bits and bytes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Thanks to the current administration, which is one of the most disastrous, provincial or federal, that I have recollection of.
> Except, perhaps, Bob Rae.


Rae was bad for Ontario, so was Mike Harris..some of his cutbacks turned
out to be disastrous in the final analysis. We haven't had responsible fiscal
gov't since Bill Davis back in the late 70s/early 80s. 



> But implementing the budget cuts requires it.
> There is no other viable way of suddently finding billions of $$ out of the thin blue sky.
> It is not hard because it's hard to implement, but because it is/will be an extremely unpopular move.


Sure the billions can come from the Ont. taxpayers! Budget cuts have to
be done smartly and efficiently..there is no point cutting the public sector
by 20% when the severance payouts are going to cost us more in one
time costs than the salaries they would receive over the next 4 years.

Maybe it's time to trim the fat, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't
impact the gov't worker (and his family) or the taxpayer..at least too much.
Saying that the gov't work force will be trimmed by 20% (1 in 5 workers)
and then paying for that out of gov't coffers..is just "robbing "peter" (taxpayer) to pay "paul"..the gov't worker trimmed/forced into early retirement. OPSEU has over 105,000 members....a *unionized* civil service. Not only would we see
strikes and big time disruptions..but that could lead to far greater ramifications. 

If Hudak wants to trim 21,000 of these over the next 4 years..imagine
what it will cost!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Public_Service_Employees_Union



> Given the preponderance of public sector (in different shapes and forms like teachers' unions, garbage collectors, police services, health care workers, etc.) in Ontario, such a move is almost certain to ensure non-election or (if somehow elected) preclusion from re-election and a extremely volatile administration.
> Therefore, even though I support such a platform, I have slim hopes of it being implemented to the degree it should.


Well lets put it this way..some election promises are "Blue Sky"...nice to
have, but if we don't see them actually get implemented in the 4 year
term after the election is over..we will still get on with the business of living
every day.

Rob Ford is trying to privatize the Toronto garbage collection..and he's
finding it's not as easy as he first thought..imagine trying to downsize
the Ontario civil service by 20K jobs? 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/...ion-privatization-Ford-110207/20110207/Castle

"Fuzzy Math"....a new expression for Ontario's two levels of gov't these days. 



> I suspect a lot of it will be done by reducing future hiring and future pay/benefits.
> Even though I may vote for such a platform, I don't advocate no-cause termination of current employees, cuts/reduction in promised benefits, and changes to existing employment contracts.


Well I would agree that setting a new policy to replace only the key workers
is probably the best way of starting the reduction process..
gradual attrition..as the gov't employees retire..(or leave for other reasons)..
the impact is not as widely felt. BUT..this may take more than 4 years..and
will the Ontario voter be patient to see this kind of change over a more
realistic... 10 years? 




> What about the HST on gasoline?
> That added 8% to the price at the pumps and a sweet deal for the provincial govt.


That is a can of worms that even Hudak probably won't touch. The transfer
payments from Harper's gov't will preclude any reason to reduce taxes on
gasoline...and as McGuinty already mentioned.."if Ont reduces or eliminates
the HST on gasoline..the oil companies will just raise the prices to make
up the difference." He probably has some merit here, because the distribution
and retail costs/profits are based on the selling price of a litre of gas.



> Not sure if technology allows it, but I don't know why not - if all the personal data can be encoded, the picture may also be, after all it's just bits and bytes.


I don't think they would encode personal information on the new OHIP card.
The picture, DOB, personal signature, OHIP number are already laminated.
I don't think OHIP needs more info than that to verify on their database
that you are the cardholder using the health service, as the clerk at
the hospital/doctors office can verify just from the picture who you are.

The big issue is that there are thousands of the old red/white cards out
there that for some reason have not been replaced. These can be used
by ANYONE to request health services at an emergency room/clinic
where people come off the street. So this would allow room for
someone to "borrow" a red/white OHIP card and use it for lots of
health services..as the person to which it was originally issued to.

Unlike a CC, where the "cost of borrowing" shows up in a monthly
statement to the person for which the card was issued..the cost
of fraudulent health services is absorbed by OHIP..
..and that costs all of us in the long run.


----------

