# Another Ontario tax increase is coming



## gibor365

Anothet tax increase is coming  Didn't you get tired of it?
TORONTO - The Ontario budget will increase taxes on high income earners, tobacco and aviation fuel, according to a document obtained from a source outside the Liberal government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/29/ontario-budget-2014_n_5236082.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yup, saw that this morning.
Taxtario is continuing its agenda of punitive tax increases to fund public sector boondoggles and income re-distribution.


----------



## andrewf

Well, none of the changes impact me much or at all. Maybe that's why they are changing those taxes?

Harold: the Taxtario thing is not helping you. It makes you sound like the trolls live in the comment sections under newspaper articles (things like Canuskistan, 'LIEberal', 'CRAP party', etc.). I know you're better than that.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Yup, saw that this morning.
> Taxtario is continuing its agenda of punitive tax increases to fund public sector boondoggles and income re-distribution.


Well Harold, as they say..in life there are only two things that are certain...death and taxes...or taxes and death...choice is yours.:biggrin:
If you take death..they will tax you again for the last time before you leave this world.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Well, none of the changes impact me much or at all.


Good for you.... But almost everything will impact us  Hate it !
btw, taxes on "aviation fuel" gonna impact air fare?

P.S. I still remember famous so-called "temporary" health tax .... after read reports that all $$ were going not where they where supposed to....

Just wondering if we gonna have sometime normal government, without all those Ontario power plant scandals that cost 1.1 Bil etc?


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> Just wondering if we gonna have sometime normal government, without all those Ontario power plant scandals that cost 1.1 Bil etc?


Go out there and vote !
That is the only way to effect change.
Ontario voter turnouts are very low.
Last elections, it dropped below 50% for the first time.

More people need to be aware of what's going on, how their personal lives are being impacted, and take action.
Voting is the easiest and cheapest way to take action.


----------



## Xoron

HaroldCrump said:


> Go out there and vote !


Sure, and how pray tell do you vote for (and yes, I do vote on a regular basis)
1. Liberals - Boy they've made a mess of things for 10 years. Scandal after scandal
2. Conservatives - Not with Hudak running the show. 
3. NDP? - Maybe just maybe. As a protest vote


----------



## Beaver101

Of the 3 major parties :disgust: , I go by eenie-meenie-miné-moe .. and none gets my vote!


----------



## andrewf

Voting isn't really enough. If you want things to change, you need to get in your MPP's face and vote with your dollars. Money talks.


----------



## Beaver101

andrewf said:


> Voting isn't really enough. If you want things to change, you need to *get in your MPP's face and vote with your dollars. Money talks*.


 .. yep, I totally agree that money talks. Any MPP or politician who has a plan in place to share the taxpayers' pain and reduce or as much as hold the line on their salary and/or expenses for the next 4 years will get my vote. Otherwise, thumbs-down!


----------



## HaroldCrump

This is Hudak's last chance.
He will lose the party leadership unless they can form a minority govt. next elections.
btw, I don't think there will be a mid term election.
NDP leader is playing the familiar old game of extracting more concessions from the liberal budget to appeal to her core base i.e. more welfare funding, higher taxes, more infrastructure spending, etc.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... If you take death..they will tax you again for the last time before you leave this world.


But you won't care ... your executor/heirs will .... :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> Go out there and vote ! ...
> Last elections, it dropped below 50% for the first time ...
> Voting is the easiest and cheapest way to take action.


Many don't see much of a difference in their choices so I suspect it's down to tax payers demanding change.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Xoron said:


> Sure, and how pray tell do you vote for (and yes, I do vote on a regular basis)
> 
> 2. Conservatives - Not with Hudak running the show.
> 3. NDP? - Maybe just maybe. As a protest vote


Hudak will make some mistakes, but voters may vote for him as a protest vote against the Fiberals..who really have to go..too much taxpayers money wasted in the last 10 years, thanks to McGuinty.
NDP..I remember the last time we had a NDP gov't under Bob Rae...Ontario was screwed up as well during his term, but in retrospect, not as bad as where we are now with the Fiberals.


----------



## gibor365

Agree that there are not many options  definitely not liberals, NDP - will imply even higher taxes.... Hudak - I remember he wanted to introduce extending taxpayer funding to religious private schools ... this one right away gave me bad impression on his program....


----------



## HaroldCrump

That was John Tory.
That issue cost him the 2007 elections.


----------



## andrewf

To be fair to Hudak, that was his predecessor, John Tory, who proposed public funding for religious schools (other than Catholic).


----------



## gibor365

Still _Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak was just as vocal as (then-leader) John Tory about his support for making taxpayers pay for private faith-based schools. On his website, he stated that "Support for parents who choose to send their children to independent faith-based schools has been a long-standing cause for me_" - See more at: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/archi...ols/racebasedschools.htm#sthash.aDFf5sEz.dpuf


----------



## andrewf

I'm sure he'll be smart enough to keep his mouth shut on that topic.


----------



## OptsyEagle

There should be no funding for any faith based schools, including catholic. That would resolve the issue. Too bad politically it can't happen, but it is the right thing to do. 

With the above, they should include education about the various religions (top 7 to 10 by world population) in public schools since it is important to know what some people believe. It is amazing.


----------



## BoringInvestor

I think the Liberals deserve some roasting for their mismanagement of files, but as of now they're the best of the worse.

Hudak and the Conservatives are wrong for Toronto (they chant subways subways subways" even though it goes against planning needs, priorities, and evidence. Even then they only want to fund transit after the deficit is cleared, meaning it will be years before any shovels hit the ground).
The NDP under Horwath have no clear messaging to me - they had ample opportunities to stand up for Toronto and their traditional progressive base... but have continuously passed. I don't know who they are or what they stand for.

If I had to vote today, I'd probably go Green. 
If my riding had a close race between the Liberals and either the NDP or Conservatives, I'd have to go with the Liberals.


----------



## BoringInvestor

OptsyEagle said:


> There should be no funding for any faith based schools, including catholic. That would resolve the issue. Too bad politically it can't happen, but it is the right thing to do.
> 
> With the above, they should include education about the various religions (top 7 to 10 by world population) in public schools since it is important to know what some people believe. It is amazing.


Having gone through Catholic school in Ontario - *World Religion* is a mandatory class.


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> The NDP under Horwath have no clear messaging to me - they had ample opportunities to stand up for Toronto and their traditional progressive base... but have continuously passed.
> *I don't know who they are or what they stand for.*


The NDP stands for a welfare and union centric agenda.
They are not progressive at all...they are the most regressive political party out there.

Their core platform is one of income re-distribution via punitive income & corporate taxation, union dominance, and a vast expansion of welfare payments.

Like you, I'd much rather vote for a Green candidate or an independent before I'd even think of voting NDP.


----------



## P_I

Any chance of changing the article title to reflect this topic is Ontario specific? Not all forum members live in Ontario.


----------



## gibor365

P_I said:


> Any chance of changing the article title to reflect this topic is Ontario specific? Not all forum members live in Ontario.


Really?! Does people also live in other provinces?!

NDP can be described like "Take from rich and share among poor" ... as CCCP has shown , such thing doesn't work...

btw, is 150K is a really high-income?! I can assume that 150K salary it is, but income is not only salary...


----------



## andrewf

Yeah, $150k is objectively 'high income'. $150k is in the top decile of incomes in Ontario.

And most income in employment income. There isn't a huge difference between the top decile and the next three below it. It kind of puts paid to the idea that the 1% are evil capitalists that earn all their money from returns on accumulated wealth/capital. A lot of them just are absurdly well compensated (executives and celebrities).

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011001/c-g/c-g03-eng.cfm


----------



## My Own Advisor

There really isn't much difference 5th or 6th to highest actually.

Ontario is now a "have not" province. Sadly. Need to tax our way out of it, I don't many other alternatives. This might not be fun... #taxes


----------



## sags

Still...........Ontario taxpayers send 11 Billion dollars a year to Ottawa........more than they receive back in equalization payments.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/30/money_still_flows_out_of_havenot_ontario.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

My Own Advisor said:


> Sadly. Need to tax our way out of it, I don't many other alternatives.


A profligate govt. can never tax their way out of debt.
What is sad is that the current administration thinks they can.
If it were that easy, the US, Greece, France, Japan, Spain, Portugal (to name a few) would have taxed their way out of debt a long time ago.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton : _It's the spending not the revenue, stupid_.

Don't you see what's going on...last year, they said $500K is "high income" and raised taxes to 50% at that bracket.
Now, $150K is "high income".
Next, $100K will be "high income".


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> A profligate govt. can never tax their way out of debt.
> What is sad is that the current administration thinks they can.
> If it were that easy, the US, Greece, France, Japan, Spain, Portugal (to name a few) would have taxed their way out of debt a long time ago.
> [/I].


Hudak is saying that and the proposed OPP (Ontario Pension Plan) contributions that employers and employees will be forced to contribute to (along with CPP and EI) will force about
150,000 jobs out of Ontario. 
The new reality of that paycheck after the OPP gets approved:

Before tax income: $xxx.xx
Income tax:
CPP:
EI:
OPP:
and that leaves the worker with?...an opportunity to go to the food bank to feed his.her family


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Hudak is saying that and the proposed OPP (Ontario Pension Plan) contributions that employers and employees will be forced to contribute to (along with CPP and EI) will force about
> 150,000 jobs out of Ontario.
> The new reality of that paycheck after the OPP gets approved:
> 
> Before tax income: $xxx.xx
> Income tax:
> CPP:
> EI:
> OPP:
> and that leaves the worker with?...*an opportunity to go to the food bank to feed his.her family*


 ... sounds right. 

Exactly where is the OPP contribution going, the worker or the government? Would it not have a pension adjustment to it? Has the shoo-in Wynne thought it out with her pension experts?


----------



## peterk

andrewf said:


> Voting isn't really enough. If you want things to change, you need to get in your MPP's face and vote with your dollars. Money talks.


Or (possibly) even better, vote with your feet and move out to Alberta! :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... sounds right.
> 
> Exactly where is the OPP contribution going, the worker or the government? Would it not have a pension adjustment to it? Has the shoo-in Wynne thought it out with her pension experts?


Nobody knows for sure what they are going to do with that. Right now it's just a proposal, as Wynne and her Fiberals feel that as more Ontario workers retire in the next 15 years,
the CPP and OAS isn't going to be enough..especially for those that are part time or hourly workers, as RFT worker segment with anty DB or DC pensions is shrinking.

This is going to be a problem for those retiring with just CPP ($1000 max?) and OAS ($5xx max) and maybe a GIS supplement which isn't going to be that much and gets clawed back to $0 (currrently)
around $12.000 per year. Today if your income is $20K or under..you ARE at the poverty level and not required to pay even the $300 OHIP tax.

However, with the present track record of waste waste waste by the Fiberals (Gas plant cancellation, ORNGE and ehealth and other gov't mismanagement) how can we trust them to have a OPP
fund that will be there for those that have no savings and no other pension plans other than the Fed gov't?
Wynne isn't going to be around in 10-15 years as Premier, so any plan that applies to all Ontario retirees has to be "bulletproof" like the CPP.


----------



## andrewf

If an OPP is set up the same way as the CPPIB, I think it is not a bad idea. I would definitely be opposed if it was a political slush fund like the Caisse de Depot in Quebec. 

Hudak's claims that it would kill 150k jobs are ridiculous. The Federal Ministry of Finance estimated a lower impact on the whole country if the CPP were expanded. And don't forget that some of those job losses are grannies who actually get to retire rather than cleaning bathrooms at TH or greeting customers at Walmart because they have enough to live on. How many jobs are 'created'/'lost' due to a policy is a very poor metric for assessing its merit.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The OPP is just a political gimmick, keeping in mind an upcoming election if the budget fails to pass.

If the Wynne government's heart were truly bleeding for those private sector workers without DBP plans, they should cut their spending, eliminate the deficit and STOP robbing our pocket books with punitive income taxes, fake hydro rates, and other complete bullsh*t taxes like eco fee, gas tax, health premium, etc.

The OPP fund will be mismanaged just like every other project they have undertaken like e-Health, Metrolinx, Presto Farecard, and many more.

As for the need for yet another govt. funded pension plan, that is a separate discussion we have had many times over across various threads.
I will just say this that we don't need yet another govt. managed "pension plan" - we have enough of those.
There are ample saving avenues available outside of govt. managed plans, incl. RRSP, TFSA, and just plain non reg. savings.

In my view, the govt. is going in a completely reverse direction than what they should be doing in this matter.
They should look to rationalize the huge management superstructures they already have across various public sector pension plans like OTPP, OMERS, HOOPP, OPSPP, and many other public sector plans that are all over the place.
They should be looking to consolidate them, reduce the management and bureaucratic overhead, and raise employee contribution rates 50/50 across-the-board.

Creating yet another govt. managed pension plan is simply a fake job creation program.


----------



## sags

A quote from John Manley, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

_Mr. Manley said that tackling tax reform has always been a challenge for governments. He said when he was finance minister, business leaders would often complain about the corporate tax rate.

"One of the things I would say to them is, if you want really low taxes, try Nigeria. There's no security, there's no infrastructure, the telephone systems don't work, but the taxes are pretty low.

"There's an old saying: 'Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.' Nobody likes to pay. Unfortunately, governments need the money."

"We've got a great country. None of us go around with bodyguards and people live pretty well together. But that reality can be fragile. We've seen it break down in other countries. So a sense that everyone is contributing is important to that."_

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cor...t-contributes-in-lots-of-other-ways-1.2621944


----------



## sags

Hudak also claims that if elected........he will create 1,000,000 new jobs and build subways systems.......with nothing but pixie dust.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yup, exactly like how Wynne and Souza will eliminate the deficit by 2016...


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> There are ample saving avenues available outside of govt. managed plans, incl. RRSP, TFSA, and just plain non reg. savings.
> 
> In my view, the govt. is going in a completely reverse direction than what they should be doing in this matter.
> They should look to rationalize the huge management superstructures they already have across various public sector pension plans like OTPP, OMERS, HOOPP, OPSPP, and many other public sector plans that are all over the place.
> They should be looking to consolidate them, reduce the management and bureaucratic overhead, and raise employee contribution rates 50/50 across-the-board.
> 
> *Creating yet another govt. managed pension plan is simply a fake job creation program.*



True, it will create another bureaucracy unto itself and we have enough of those top heavy bureaucratic schemes already...but OTOH, it is job creation if you want to look at it that way. 

If this pension scheme goes through, you can be assured that the present gov't will find ways to tap both the employers and the employees..and as we have already heard on the news
about McD's reducing Canadian worker hours to hire Temp Foreign workers that have no plans or benefits and that way the employers can get around these payroll taxes.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Hudak also claims that if elected........he will create 1,000,000 new jobs and build subways systems.......with nothing but pixie dust.


I wish he would just stop shooting off at the top of his head..doesn't give him any credibility as a politician..and what do we have left..the Fiberals (proven track record on mismanagement)
and Horwath with no experience but at least that is a good thing as she hasn't mismanaged the Ontario economy..yet......neither one better than the other.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Yup, exactly like how Wynne and Souza will eliminate the deficit by 2016...


Well Harold, if you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...


> Sousa said that the uncertain and slow recovery from the global recession has led to $5 billion less in projected provincial revenues since 2010.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...bout-11-7b-deficit-if-economy-slows-1.2418456


----------



## Beaver101

God help us all Ontarians but more so Torontonians. :cower:


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Creating yet another govt. managed pension plan is simply a fake job creation program.


Harold.... seriously?

I can't believe you actually believe this. 

I think everyone who supports an OPP would rather an expanded CPP. Unfortunately the feds are being intransigent on the issue. Maybe at some point it can be rolled into the CPP.


----------



## andrewf

peterk said:


> Or (possibly) even better, vote with your feet and move out to Alberta! :biggrin:


But then you have to live in Alberta.


----------



## gibor365

carverman said:


> Nobody knows for sure what they are going to do with that. Right now it's just a proposal, as Wynne and her Fiberals feel that as more Ontario workers retire in the next 15 years,


Than maybe Ontario need to establish special immigration program that exists in some provinces like MB or QC. Government should know excatly in which industries workers are needed and bring young families that will start working right away.... Just look at Eastern Ukraine, instead of sending fighers to the borders, create special immigration program, there are a lot of skill workers over there....


----------



## carverman

gibor said:


> Just look at Eastern Ukraine, instead of sending fighters to the borders, create special immigration program, there are a lot of skill workers over there....


But do they want to work?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I can't believe you actually believe this.


I actually believe we do not need yet another govt. managed pension plan, esp. at a provincial level.
Yes, seriously.
Why is that so hard to believe?



> I think everyone who supports an OPP would rather an expanded CPP.


Not necessarily...I can see the case for an expanded CPP, but a net new pension plan at a single provincial level simply creates additional bureaucracy and cost.
What's next - all the provinces that favor an expansion of the CPP (but are being blocked by the Federal Ministry of Finance) should go ahead and create a provincial level plan of their own?

All the typical pension management functions, including actuarial, regulatory, money management, disbursement, payroll deductions, etc. will have to be duplicated.
It is a lot of extra cost that we do not need right now, given the massive amounts of provincial debt.


----------



## sags

The Ontario Pension Plan is a Wynne/Wynne situation.


----------



## gibor365

carverman said:


> But do they want to work?


Immigration officer should interview potential immigrants and decide . I don't think that skill worker who worked for lets say 10 years, will expect only to come to Canada to get welfare (that no immigrants will get anyway). To tell you the truth, I know personally hundreds of immigrants from former CCCP and everyone is working practically from day one in Canada (include us)... This is a huge saving for province/country , as Ontario doesn't need to invest into daycare and education.....you get skilled workers who right away will pay taxes


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I actually believe we do not need yet another govt. managed pension plan, esp. at a provincial level.
> Yes, seriously.
> Why is that so hard to believe?


Wynne thinks so. 



> The Ontario retirement savings system will be* run at arms-length from the government, likely as a non-profit.* Payouts will be tied to the size of a worker’s contribution, similar to CPP, and people will have a rough idea of how large their retirement benefits will be, sources said. The government is also *considering ways of pooling its assets with other, already existing plans for government employees, in order to make larger investments*


.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...heart-of-wynnes-budget-pitch/article18356217/


----------



## carverman

gibor said:


> Immigration officer should interview potential immigrants and decide . I don't think that skill worker who worked for lets say 10 years, will expect only to come to Canada to get welfare (that no immigrants will get anyway). To tell you the truth, I know personally hundreds of immigrants from former CCCP and everyone is working practically from day one in Canada (include us)... This is a huge saving for province/country , as Ontario doesn't need to invest into daycare and education.....you get skilled workers who right away will pay taxes


Here is a potential problem as I see it..
1. Health care costs to taxpayers for any imported workers from other countries that have not ever worked here or paid income taxes
Health care is free so far, except for the OHIP tax based on taxable income...under $20K, so it is still free.
2. Workers will want to bring over their entire families, parents, siblings and children.....more cost to the taxpayer funded health care
3. Added drain to welfare system, if workers can't find work.
4. Language barriers (at least initially until new immigrants learn enough english to work on a job


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I actually believe we do not need yet another govt. managed pension plan, esp. at a provincial level.
> Yes, seriously.
> Why is that so hard to believe?
> 
> 
> Not necessarily...I can see the case for an expanded CPP, but a net new pension plan at a single provincial level simply creates additional bureaucracy and cost.
> What's next - all the provinces that favor an expansion of the CPP (but are being blocked by the Federal Ministry of Finance) should go ahead and create a provincial level plan of their own?
> 
> All the typical pension management functions, including actuarial, regulatory, money management, disbursement, payroll deductions, etc. will have to be duplicated.
> It is a lot of extra cost that we do not need right now, given the massive amounts of provincial debt.


I think that is the fault of the fed government. The Province originally asked to expand CPPIB. It should be possible for CPPIB to manage the assets for expanded benefits for Ontario residents who are paying for them.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... They should look to rationalize the huge management superstructures they already have across various public sector pension plans like OTPP, OMERS, HOOPP, OPSPP, and many other public sector plans that are all over the place.
> 
> They should be looking to consolidate them, reduce the management and bureaucratic overhead, and raise employee contribution rates 50/50 across-the-board.


If it's to replicate HOOPP's success - that sounds like a good idea.

The comment about contribution rates suggests you view HOOPP's as cost which does not appear to be all that bad.



> While most defined benefit pension funds have struggled with significant solvency deficits since the financial crisis, HOOPP has maintained a surplus that now stands at $10.1-billion.


http://business.financialpost.com/2...ctor-re-adoption-of-defined-benefit-pensions/




> The Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) posted investment returns of 8.6 per cent last year, below the industry average but enough to fatten even further its already significant surplus.
> 
> The pension fund, which represents 286,000 members working within the province’s health-care sector, had a funding ratio of 114 per cent at the end of 2013, meaning it has more assets than it would need to pay all of its pension obligations if it were wrapped up immediately ...
> 
> A typical Canadian pension plan was just 77-per-cent funded as of Dec. 31, after years of hits from volatile stock markets and declining bond yields ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...risky-business-healthy-payoff/article4414197/


They do say


> For every $1 you contribute, your employer is currently contributing $1.26 – making HOOPP a cornerstone of your retirement savings.



So it's not 50/50 but since they apparently avoided a deficit in 2008 - I suspect the employers are happier with a slighly higher contributions than employees considering that for other plans the employers had to come up with millions in top up payments.


Cheers


----------



## el oro

> By unlocking value from its assets and encouraging more Ontarians to save
> through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, new pools of capital
> would be available for Ontario‐based projects such as building roads, bridges
> and new transit.


I read the quote above in an article and had to see it in the Budget for myself. It is under the section "Investing in Transportation and Infrastructure".

I'd be pretty concerned about this if I still lived in Ontario but, hey, at least the "arms-length operated" OPP might kill two birds with one stone and pay for part of some new 407's/buses/trains :hopelessness:


----------



## andrewf

I didn't see that. I would be opposed to any kind of mandate or political influence on the investments such a pension scheme would make. CPP has done quite well precisely because it was free of political meddling.


----------



## HaroldCrump

$1600 Gold's suspicions are well founded.
Here is what will happen...the pension plan investment management board will be nudged-nudged to invest in the new infrastructure and green bonds to be offered by the province (also in the budget).
These bonds will be slightly higher yield.

If they are not at the outset, they will soon be...as soon as Moody's and S&P downgrade Ontario one more time.

So it will be a very convenient situation...the new bonds will be rated AA at the very least, making them investment grade for the pension plan.

I am, in fact, quite surprised that the budget document is so explicit about this proposed manoeuver.


----------



## GoldStone

What will be the size of the new bureaucracy to manage the pension plan? Any bets?


----------



## andrewf

Apparently the plan has provisions for rolling it into CPP once there is an agreeable federal government (which might be in about 16 months), so perhaps zero.


----------



## GoldStone

Andrew, here's a direct quote from the budget:

"By unlocking value from its assets and encouraging more Ontarians to save through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, new pools of capital would be available for Ontario-based projects such as building roads, bridges and new transit."

This mandate to invest in Ontario-based project is incompatible with CPP.


----------



## mars

HaroldCrump said:


> In my view, the govt. is going in a completely reverse direction than what they should be doing in this matter.
> They should look to rationalize the huge management superstructures they already have across various public sector pension plans like OTPP, OMERS, HOOPP, OPSPP, and many other public sector plans that are all over the place.
> They should be looking to consolidate them, reduce the management and bureaucratic overhead, and raise employee contribution rates 50/50 across-the-board.


I do agree with you that the management of these plans should be merged which would reduce the overhead management fees. I am wondering if you know what the contribution rates are to these various plans? I do not know for all of them but I do know for the HOOPP plan the contribution is 45/55. The employee contributing the 45. I know because I've been a part of the plan for a little over a year and I know what I contribute and what the employer contributes. My last place of employment with a private company (no government involvement) also had a similar contribution split. The company had two types of pension plans, they had a small DB plan which was 100% funded by the company and then an optional DC plan where the employee could contribute and the company would do a matching. The total amount contributed to the two plans and the split between employee and employer is very comparable to the HOOPP plan.


----------



## HaroldCrump

GoldStone said:


> What will be the size of the new bureaucracy to manage the pension plan? Any bets?


Layers upon layers of fatcat bureaucrats to manage all the regulations, reporting, fund management, disbursements, etc.
Each and every one of them honorary members of the Sunshine List.


----------



## HaroldCrump

mars said:


> I am wondering if you know what the contribution rates are to these various plans?


It is 50/50 employee & employer.



> I do not know for all of them but I do know for the HOOPP plan the contribution is 45/55.
> ...
> The total amount contributed to the two plans and the split between employee and employer is very comparable to the HOOPP plan.


A vast number of public sector pension plans have higher employer (i.e. tax payer) contributions than employee contributions.
Employee contribution rates have ticked up slightly in recent years (like in the OTPP plan), but they are a far cry from 50/50.

The new proposed ORPP won't apply to public sector employees with existing defined benefit pension plans.
The ORPP is to snare the private sector workers without DBPs into the Ponzi scheme.


----------



## andrewf

To call it a ponzi scheme is to rob the term of all meaning.


----------



## warp

Please let me add my 2 cents here.

Anybody who would vote for the Liberals in this election is an abject IDIOT, plain and simple. 

What else do they have to do to lose your support?? How much more waste of billions of dollars?? how much more lying about not raising taxes?? How many more stupid wastefull programs?? How much more idiotic leadership??

Voting for the NDP is a personal choice, but then you'd be even less clueless than anyone voting Liberal....and a bigger idiot too.

That leaves Hudak and the Conservatives...not a great choice, I'd agree, but the only logical one, and the only hope to get this province in any kind of reasonable shape.

Just my 2 cents .........


----------



## andrewf

Are you guaranteeing that Hudak will not waste billions of dollars? How many of your hard-earned dollars would you be willing to place on that guarantee?


----------



## HaroldCrump

warp said:


> Anybody who would vote for the Liberals in this election is an abject IDIOT, plain and simple.
> What else do they have to do to lose your support?? How much more waste of billions of dollars?? how much more lying about not raising taxes?? How many more stupid wastefull programs?? How much more idiotic leadership??


It is the other way round - those that are committed to voting for the Liberals, are doing so _precisely_ for those reasons !
They _want_ the massive public spending, they _want_ the new pension plan, they _want_ the tax increases on the so-called "rich", they _want_ the privileged treatment of the public sector workers and the unions.

This election manifesto is a pandering to their tradition vote banks, to ensure there is no flight to the NDP.

The Liberals are hoping to upgrade from a minority position to a majority govt. by stealing the NDP votes, not by converting the PC vote.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Are you guaranteeing that Hudak will not waste billions of dollars? How many of your hard-earned dollars would you be willing to place on that guarantee?


So, according to your logic, voters should always vote for the incumbents because there is no guarantee that the other contestants may do better.


----------



## andrewf

Not quite. Just saying that we should not delude ourselves that any party is immune to waste and mismanagement.


----------



## GoldStone




----------



## HaroldCrump

The tax increase on so-called "rich" is classic *bracket creep*.


----------



## andrewf

Aren't the brackets indexed to CPI?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Aren't the brackets indexed to CPI?


Not when new brackets are introduced arbitrarily to pander to lobby groups baying for the blood of "high income earners" and "rich people".

In 2011, they defined high-income as $500K and created a net new tax bracket at that level, with higher marginal tax rates.
Now, that bracket has been adjusted lower to $220K.
And a new bracket has been introduced at $150K.

There is no rhyme or reason to it.


----------



## gibor365

warp said:


> Please let me add my 2 cents here.
> 
> Anybody who would vote for the Liberals in this election is an abject IDIOT, plain and simple.
> 
> What else do they have to do to lose your support?? How much more waste of billions of dollars?? how much more lying about not raising taxes?? How many more stupid wastefull programs?? How much more idiotic leadership??
> 
> Voting for the NDP is a personal choice, but then you'd be even less clueless than anyone voting Liberal....and a bigger idiot too.
> 
> That leaves Hudak and the Conservatives...not a great choice, I'd agree, but the only logical one, and the only hope to get this province in any kind of reasonable shape.
> 
> Just my 2 cents .........


 You exactly expressed my opinion 
P.S. If everyone will be voting Liberals or NDP, who gonna work?!


----------



## GoldStone

The new tax brackets will raise very little revenue. The extra revenue won't make a slightest dent to Ontario deficit, never mind debt. It's just a political ploy to steal NDP votes.

Fearless prediction:

Ontario HST will be going to 14% or maybe even 15% in the not-so-distant future.

What else can they do to tackle deficits and debt? Cut spending?? Where???


----------



## sags

I would like to see a comparison on what the tax rate is..........and what is actually paid.

Discussing tax rates is meaningless...........if the actual amount paid is higher or less.

A thorough study in the US found the corporate rate of taxation is 35% and the actual rate paid was 19%.

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php

"_Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”

Other Findings:

• One hundred and eleven of the 288 companies (39 percent of them) paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2012.

• The sectors with the lowest effective corporate tax rates over the five-year period were utilities (2.9 percent), industrial machinery (4.3 percent), telecommunications (9.8 percent), oil, gas and pipelines (14.4 percent), transportation (16.4 percent), aerospace and defense (16.7 percent) and financial (18.8 percent).

• The tax breaks claimed by these companies are highly concentrated in the hands of a few very large corporations. Just 25 companies claimed $174 billion in tax breaks over the five years between 2008 and 2012. That’s almost half the $364 billion in tax subsidies claimed by all of the 288 companies in our sample.

• Five companies — Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, and Verizon — enjoyed over $77 billion in tax breaks during this five-year period._"

It is much the same scenario in Canada for corporations and wealthy individuals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/26/corporate-canada-taxes_n_5217509.html


----------



## andrewf

I'd be really curious to see what Hudak would do to control the deficit. Cutting taxes and cutting hydro rates isn't really a good explanation for how he would reduce the deficit. I tried looking at their website to see their platform, and apparently they will only deign to give it to you if you give them your email address. Asinine. Do you want my vote or not?


----------



## sags

Hudak said the PC platform will be fully revealed in the future. 

It will be interesting to see how he plans to cut taxes, cut hydro rates, create 1 million new jobs, and balance the budget.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The 1M jobs plan is rhetoric, I agree.
He is calculating it as 125K * 8.
The economy never goes up in a straight line for 8 years.

Also, not even the most enthusiastic proponents of corporate tax cuts would project that it will create 1M jobs in an economy with 6M workers, give or take.
That would be a 16% increase.
If the TFW program remains frozen, the economy will suffer - so there is more than just Ontario specific issues going on here.

As for balancing the budget, Hudak has not said he will do it in 1 year.
No one can balance the budget (given its state) in 2 - 3 years.

The first step is to stop spending.
When in a ditch, stop digging.
He has said he will stop spending on these massive public works projects.
He has said he will impose an immediate wage freeze on the public sector (which incidentally even McGuinty wanted to do).

There cannot be any hope of reducing spending without reining in the public sector wages & benefits - that is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
No administration can hope to achieve anything if all the large unions (and there are many) are able to negotiate 5% - 8% wage increases every year.

Surely, sags & andrewf, with your financial savvy, people like you ought to see this clearly.

Neither the Wynne administration nor the NDP will take this course of action, ever.


----------



## andrewf

Stopping infrastructure investment doesn't save any money, it builds up as deferred maintenance, which is just an off-balance sheet liability. I am not a fan of the public sector unions, but I doubt a wage freeze (even for 8 years) is going to accomplish much. Hudak will need to make cuts, and he needs to tell people what they will be. 

And I doubt any union has negotiated wage increases of 8% compounded annually over any significant period of time (without excluding other periods of lower or zero wage growth).


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> And I doubt any union has negotiated wage increases of 8% compounded annually over any significant period of time (without excluding other periods of lower or zero wage growth).


Remember the elementary teachers strike during the peak of the financial crisis in 2009, when MCG was still in office?
The result of that negotiation/blackmail was a 9% increase.

The OPP increases have been about 8% as well.

The Ontario public sector increases during the so-called "wage freeze" back in 2010 was 4%.
This was the under-the-table deal that was caught by the AG in 2011, and MCG was called out in the parliament for making this deal.
Of course, nothing changed.

It seems you are saying:
- We need to keep spending the billions on public works & infrastructure
- Leave the unions alone
- The tax increases are not going to raise net revenue much anyway

In other words, _we have no choice_ other than to continue this debt & deficit binge.
That is just the way it is, and no one can change that.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Hudak said the PC platform will be fully revealed in the future.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how he plans to cut taxes, cut hydro rates, create 1 million new jobs, and balance the budget.


These are all election promises..even if he gets in, there is a lot of difficult work ahead for him, to cut hydro rates, never mind the other promises.

I would prefer that he freezes the hydro rates where they are now, and gets rid of the debt retirement "cash cow" and eliminates the 8% PST on electricity. That would be at least some progress.


----------



## sags

Politicians don't have the stomach for tough negotiations.

They should remove themselves from the negotiating process..........and stay out.

Hire some professionals......some from the corporate world and some from the union world.

Set them up to work together as arbitration panels .......and then institute mandatory arbitration for all unionized public service workers.

Second............go over the budge line by line, department by department and discover where the money is being spent.

Third, .........start cutting the expenses that are non productive. Cut tax breaks that are unnecessary and expensive.

Fourth.........incorporate the Auditor General into the budget process. The analysis of a competent third party would be of great benefit and hopefully eliminate the practice of "election goodies" spending.

Last and not least...............eliminate a myriad of tax deductions and deferrals that destroy government revenue.

Everybody pays their fair share.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Politicians don't have the stomach for tough negotiations.
> 
> They should remove themselves from the negotiating process..........and stay out.
> 
> Hire some professionals......some from the corporate world and some from the union world.
> 
> Everybody pays their fair share.


While that sounds good from a democratic perspective, as soon as you get unions involved (ie: McGuilty and the teachers union dispute), you don't get much accomplished.

I agree that the kingpin (Hudak) would not get involved with the nitty-gritty of negotiation price and tax cuts..they spend too much time at Queen's Park dickering with the opposition..
but election promises are just that..when they finally get into the business of running the gov't..screwups are inevitable...
Remember Chretien mouthing off during his election campaign flashing his Liberal red book in front of media cameras as telling us.".if I get in I will kill the gst"........Ya right.
McGuilty during his campaign for his first term..."read my lips..no new taxes"....ya right!..right after we got the OHIP tax, although in retrospect, health care funding has to be shared by the users as well, but only those with taxable incomes over $20k..the rest of the population get health care for free.


----------



## gibor365

imho, the election system is completely unfair and not democratic. People should vote for specific party and not specific candidate ... If for example, in all ridings Liberal gets 50.1% and Conservatives 49.9% , ALL seats will belong to Liberal 100% and it's when at least half voted for another party !
This is also one of the reasons participation in elections is always so low.... if in my riding one candidate is leading (as per pools) with big paar....what the point for me to vote? My vote will be lost....


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> If for example, in all ridings Liberal gets 50.1% and Conservatives 49.9% , ALL seats will belong to Liberal 100%


That model is fraught with its own problems as well.
It is the model followed by US Presidential elections.
That is precisely what got G.W. Bush elected over Al Gore in 2000 (not discussing the merits of the respective candidates, just saying).

In the Canadian instance, such a model would be absolutely disastrous.
It will eliminate minority governments, and basically even if a party gets 1 vote more than the other, their position will immediately elevate to a majority govt.

If _that_ is what you want, well, I suppose prepare yourself for a Liberal majority govt. in Ontario for the rest of your lifetime.
The Liberals will get a higher % of popular vote - it is just a matter of demographics.

I assume you will have nothing to complain on 12th June then :biggrin:


----------



## gibor365

_The Liberals will get a higher % of popular vote - it is just a matter of demographics.
_ 
First of all , from what I propose ALL voted will be counted. and OK, let's assume, from all Ontario voters Liberals gets 40%, Conservatives 30%, NDP 11% and rest Green and some smaller parties. For Liberals to have majority they need to do coalition with other party.... We have such elections in Israel and it works fine....even if some small party has only 2-3 seats, they can influence government decisions as everyone would like them in coalition....
But in current election system....we live in riding where for last 20 years Liberals are winning with big difference....so what the point for us to go to election at all? And if I know that my vote will be counted (if I vote for a specific party and not for single candidate in my disctrict) and summed with other votes for the same party, it is essential for us to go to election

_That is precisely what got G.W. Bush elected over Al Gore in 2000 (not discussing the merits of the respective candidates, just saying).
_ NO! They didn't count votes in all states, but counted per state (in this case in Florida)...


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> And if I know that my vote will be counted (if I vote for a specific party and not for single candidate in my disctrict) and summed with other votes for the same party, it is essential for us to go to election


So you want to do away with the riding system?
You are suggesting that we simply count the popular vote and always elect a majority govt. based on that?
If not, we will end up with a situation where a riding gets an MPP they did not vote for.
For instance, in your riding, the majority want a Liberal MPP - you have said that.
Now, if the PCs win the popular vote, you are suggesting that a PC MPP be appointed for your riding?

Sorry, I don't understand your proposal clearly.

Anyhow, in the case of this upcoming election, unless and until the vast majority of voters agree that the Liberals have mismanaged the economy and finances, and that the goblet for corruption is full, there cannot be any effective change.
No amount of tinkering with the riding system will change the results.

Just based on the campaign news thus far, I don't sense any changes.
Demographics and vote banks and stacked heavily against the PCs.
The NDP is irrelevant at this time.
It seems to me that the only question is whether the Liberals are getting back with a minority govt. (status quo) or will they be able to whip-up enough support for a majority position.


----------



## gibor365

_Now, if the PCs win the popular vote, you are suggesting that a PC MPP be appointed for your riding?

Sorry, I don't understand your proposal clearly.
_

Sorry, English is my 3rd language ... 
My proposal, that there is nothing to do with ridings at all....
Every party gives list of their candidates (let's say Liberals gives 100 names and PC 100 names, and assume we need to select 100 seats). Voters vote for Party (regardless of any riding)... Assume Liberals get 60% of votes and PC 40%...Thus first 60 guys from Liberal Party list get elected and 40 first guys from PC got elected. When Party create their list of candidates, they will make sure that candidates represent all districts of province and all occupations (for potential minister posts)....
It will be also great benefit for small parties. In current election system I don't believe Green party will win in any of the ridings (and all voters votes are lost), but in system I propose, Green easily can get 5-7% combined (all province) and couple of seats in Parlament. Thus those 5-7% who voted for them, will have representation in parlament ... more than than , if we have tie among major parties, Green can easily get some minister post (like minister of environment) because each of the major party would like to get them into coalition....

P.S. In system I propose, it will be very difficult for any 1 party to get majority, as 10-15 parties easily will be participating in election (as they get combined votes). It will be some ethnic parties , religious parties, sexual minorities party, pensioner party, weeds party etc...those small parties will take voters from majot parties


----------



## andrewf

No Harold, I think headcount reductions and pay freezes are a good idea. I would also prefer that public sector workers had DC plans only, given the perverse incentives of politicians and unions. But none of that is going to be possible without a lot of labour disruption and cuts to services to the public. We need to be honest about it. Harper has taken the approach of hiding from the public (and watchdogs like PBO) what services are being cut, which I think is deceitful. 

To close as large a deficit as Ontario has, while simultaneously cutting revenues, will require large, non-trivial cuts to public services. I don't think it's right to dodge those questions. The public deserve to know what the trade-off is.


----------



## andrewf

gibor, that's called proportional representation. In Canada, it seems people are very attached to the idea of having a local MP that they feel is accountable to them. In Ontario, we had a referendum on adopting a proportional system called Mixed Member Proportional, which is more or less the system that Germany uses. 2/3rds of the seats are elected as they are now (FPTP), but then parties are topped up with additional list seats to bring the share of the seats in the House in line with their share of the popular vote. It was defeated pretty soundly in Ontario, but that is because even the governing Liberals opposed it after it was proposed by the Citizens Assembly (average people) who recommended it.

BC also had two referenda on Single Transferrable Vote, which is the system they use in Ireland. It's another kind of proportional representation with local representatives. It received 58% support the first time, but failed to meet the supermajority criteria for being adopted. The second referendum failed to achieve 50%.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> But none of that is going to be possible without a lot of labour disruption and cuts to services to the public.


Absolutely, I agree that it will cause a lot of labor strife, bickering, bad blood, and strikes.
But the longer we delay, the worse it will get.
This is a vortex where standing still is not an option.

Hudak has said that one of his first acts will be a public sector wage freeze - the kind that MCG _tried_ to do - half-heartedly - but never could.
He hasn't gone into specifics, such as for how long, whether there will be any net job cuts or just reduction via superannuation and attrition.

He is walking on very thin ice here - if he comes all out and says what he wants to do, he is going to lose the votes of pretty much anyone that works in any sort of public sector agency, municipality, board, department, etc.

The pension issue is yet another hot potato - the unions will mount a severe, never-seen-before, mother-of-all resistance against a conversion to a DC plan.
Of course, that is the fiscally prudent thing to do, but who cares about that.

This election is unfortunately purely a game of demographics - densely populated areas in the GTA & Southern Ontario are heavily loaded in favor of the Liberals.
I just don't see a way for the PCs to form even a minority govt., let alone a majority one.

The kind of fiscal reforms that are required for Ontario (regardless of which party takes on that challenge) will require a majority govt.

If not, we will keep muddling through like this for another 4 - 5 years until the debt, deficit, and resulting economic stagnation gets to such a point that the party in power at that time will have no choice but to make worse cuts, and raise taxes across the board.
Basically history will repeat itself (i.e. Mike Harris days).


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> gibor, that's called proportional representation. In Canada, it seems people are very attached to the idea of having a local MP that they feel is accountable to them.


but this is stupid  majority (include us) doesn't even know their MP name ... Maybe current system made sense 100 years ago, but now ...... I also don't like Mixed Member Proportional, I like full Proportional system I described.... 
Looking at % of people who is voting, looks like Ontarians (and Canadians) doesn't give a sh$# about elections at all....


----------



## gibor365

They can do a lot of cuts to government employment services (those offices who "helps" people to find job)....When I just came to Canada , I visited such offices and asked them to help me to find job and founds them completely USELESS , their training programs also completely USELESS... the only thing they care, to take your SIN # and report how many people visited them... 
Private HR agencies are 100 time better, as they financially interested to find job for you.


----------



## andrewf

The problem with the list system you suggest is that it makes parties very powerful. They have final say over which MPs are elected. See the Brent Rathgeber fiasco in Alberta for a reason why parties should be accountable to citizens for their candidates.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> The problem with the list system you suggest is that it makes parties very powerful. They have final say over which MPs are elected. See the Brent Rathgeber fiasco in Alberta for a reason why parties should be accountable to citizens for their candidates.


if party won't be accountable , it will fail next election ..... and why do you thing guy that was elected in my riding will be more accountable? I remember that once about 13 years ago I sent email to our MP asking important question, he didn't even reply! 
This system works well in Israel and many EU countries....

If I vote for party, I see their list of candidates, and I'd be more pleased if people whom I respect will go to Parlament (regardless where they live), then some unknown persons who "represents" my riding


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> This election is unfortunately purely a game of demographics - densely populated areas in the GTA & Southern Ontario are heavily loaded in favor of the Liberals.
> I just don't see a way for the PCs to form even a minority govt., let alone a majority one.


Harper won an overwhelming majority in Ontario in 2011. It is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011



> The kind of fiscal reforms that are required for Ontario (regardless of which party takes on that challenge) will require a majority govt.


Yes. That was the shame of the LPO falling short by a few seats back in 2011. They probably would have had a lot more courage to make tough cuts had they not had to secure confidence from the opposition every few months.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... The pension issue is yet another hot potato - the unions will mount a severe, never-seen-before, mother-of-all resistance against a conversion to a DC plan.
> 
> Of course, that is the fiscally prudent thing to do, but who cares about that ...


Depending on the specifics ... *it won't be the fiscally prudent thing* to do.
Unless you believe that saving money twenty plus years out is going to be a help.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...hing-to-a-cheaper-pension-plan/article555646/


In particular, Saskatchewan was one of the first to jump at the change new hires to a DC pension and they figure it's going to be something like _eighty years_ for the DB pension costs to dry up ... all while paying the DC pension costs in parallel.

So there's lots of room for what looks like a savings to be expensive.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> if party won't be accountable , it will fail next election ...


Only if there is a popular alternative ... 




gibor said:


> ... and why do you thing guy that was elected in my riding will be more accountable?
> I remember that once about 13 years ago I sent email to our MP asking important question, he didn't even reply!


That's where YMMV ... my brothers and sister have MPs who both respond and have helped.




gibor said:


> ... If I vote for party, I see their list of candidates, and I'd be more pleased if people whom I respect will go to Parlament (regardless where they live), then some unknown persons who "represents" my riding


So you are going to know and respect *every* name on the list? 
I doubt it.

Or to put it another way, what's going to remove your current MP from the list? 

If he is considered valuable to the party, under the system you are proposing - he will still be an MP.
He just won't have to bother with elections anymore.


Cheers


----------



## gibor365

_So you are going to know and respect *every* name on the list? I doubt it.

Or to put it another way, what's going to remove your current MP from the list? 

If he is considered valuable to the party, under the system you are proposing - he will still be an MP.
He just won't have to bother with elections anymore.
_
Probably yes, probably not... but I won't vote for party if I hate their #2 or #3 on the list even if I'm OK with #1.
To remove MP?! Really, how many MPs got removed in Mississauga (where I live)?!
No member will be valuable to any Party if Party gonna lose many votes because of him.....
P.S. With system I proposing , there will be definetely more parties , thus everyone will get better representation.
Currently: 
1. In my riding 70% possibility that Liberal (regardless of the name of the candidate!) gonna win. Why to bother to vote at all?
2. Lets say Liberal won't have big advantage.... I hate Liberal and NDP, I don't like PC .... so there ni any party who represents my interest...
3. I won't be surprised if just about 30-40% will go to vote


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Harper won an overwhelming majority in Ontario in 2011. It is possible.


I meant for the Ontario PCs to win this upcoming election.
I _know _Harper won a majority at the federal level in 2011 



> They probably would have had a lot more courage to make tough cuts had they not had to secure confidence from the opposition every few months.


The LBO was never going to make any cuts whatsoever - you are deluding yourself.
They had 2 full majority governments previously - they did nothing whatsoever to demonstrate even a modicum of fiscal responsibility.
Even if we leave alone MCG's first term, by the time of his 2nd term, the need for austerity, fiscal responsibility, and reeling in the militant public sector unions was clear.
They did nothing.

They have some very powerful vote banks in their support base that ensure continued reckless govt. spending and specialized treatment of the public sector.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> Depending on the specifics ... *it won't be the fiscally prudent thing* to do.
> Unless you believe that saving money twenty plus years out is going to be a help.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...hing-to-a-cheaper-pension-plan/article555646/
> 
> 
> In particular, Saskatchewan was one of the first to jump at the change new hires to a DC pension and they figure it's going to be something like _eighty years_ for the DB pension costs to dry up ... all while paying the DC pension costs in parallel.
> 
> So there's lots of room for what looks like a savings to be expensive.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Why would a DC plan cost any more than the current employer contributions to their DB plans? How long it takes to close existing DB plans is kind of irrelevant.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I meant for the Ontario PCs to win this upcoming election.
> I _know _Harper won a majority at the federal level in 2011


Not only that, he won a large majority in Ontario. His Ontario majority was far larger in % terms than at the federal level.


----------



## sags

Pandering for votes....or representing your voters....different language for the same thing....depending on which side of the fence you are standing.

Either way.......it leads to foolish spending, but it is what it is............

The best we can hope for is that whomever is elected.....isn't willing to completely bankrupt Ontario to stay in power.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> Why would a DC plan cost any more than the current employer contributions to their DB plans?


If the DC plan has the same employer contribution rates as the DB plan, one reason that would come into play that is mentioned in the article is the extra information & eduction sessions to deal with the employee now having to make investment choices.

However - this is a side bar as the article is talking about total pension costs, not just the DC component of the new employees.


It appears that the companies who made the switched, expected to have reduced pension costs from day one, despite running two plans.


The general statement for companies planning on converting is:


> ... pension experts say companies should be aware it can take decades for funding costs to start to come down, ...


The Mercer consultant describing the client experience says:


> ... “[The conversion strategy]doesn’t do much for about 20 years,” says Mercer pension consultant Paul Forestell, who has worked with companies closing their pension plans. “We’ve looked at it for clients where their liabilities don’t even start to peak until 10 years out … It’s like a snake – until you get that bulge through, you don’t save any money.”...


The Vancouver pension lawyer found:


> Vancouver pension lawyer Ken Burns recently reviewed the experience of pension plans that *converted to the DC model in the 1990s and found most of them are still not saving money.* That’s partly because the remaining DB plans have seen costs soar in the current low-interest-rate environment, and partly because they are incurring new costs to run their DC plans.



So it appears that the Ontario gov't repeats what these companies have done - there won't be a benefit to the tax payer for a long time. 




andrewf said:


> How long it takes to close existing DB plans is kind of irrelevant.


Won't declining employer/employee contributions put more pressure on the portfolio performance and possibly end up with more top ups required?


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Hudak will need to make cuts, and he needs to tell people what they will be.


You asked for details, he is giving you details 

- Eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks, and the College of Trades
- Two-year wage freeze for everyone in the broader public sector including politicians, civil servants and anyone else paid by taxpayers
- Scrap "gold-plated" civil service pension plans 
- Reduce 100,000 jobs across the entire government 
- Reduce the size of cabinet from 27 to 16 ministers

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...jobs-if-tories-win-ontario-election-1.2637436

I think he just lost approx. 1.3 million votes (approx. size of the Ontario public sector).


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> You asked for details, he is giving you details
> 
> - Eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks, and the College of Trades
> - Two-year wage freeze for everyone in the broader public sector including politicians, civil servants and anyone else paid by taxpayers
> - Scrap "gold-plated" civil service pension plans
> - Reduce 100,000 jobs across the entire government
> - Reduce the size of cabinet from 27 to 16 ministers
> 
> I think he just lost approx. 1.3 million votes (approx. size of the Ontario public sector).


Yup. This is not good campaigning when he has this banner behind him on TV promising to create 1,000,000 jobs then telling voters he's going to cut existing jobs and try to
balance the budget within 2 years....most voters will quietly tell him "not on my back, you won't!"
He should fire his campaign manager, because it's still a month to go and it's already not looking good for him.


----------



## andrewf

But doesn't that mean that those companies would have been far worse off had they kept their DB plans? So, they are saving by avoiding pension contribution increases.

Harold, where are the 100,000 jobs going to come from? Haven't seen any details.

Every 'government in waiting' promises to reduce ministries. Harper promised the same thing, and we have the biggest cabinet in our history (2 ministers for every portfolio).


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Harold, where are the 100,000 jobs going to come from? Haven't seen any details.


Well, I am not Hudak's campaign manager  but following are some of the spotty details I have garnered from various news reports:
- teaching assistants
- administrative staff at various govt. agencies/departments
- full day kindergarten and day care workers

I suspect a large portion of that 100K is accounted for by the dissolution of the OPA and College of Trades

Hudak has said he will put public sector staffing back to 2009 levels.
His reasoning is that the provincial govt. is not performing any more services than it was 5 years ago, so why do we have several hundred K more public servants.
Additional services that have been taken on by the govt. since 2009 (such as full day kindergarten) are not part of the PC platform.


----------



## andrewf

OPA only has a headcount of 250.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Power_Authority

I doubt the College of Trades has that huge of a headcount.

So, they are cutting full day kindergarten. That might actually result in some significant headcount reductions, but nowhere near 100k. But daycare is not going to disappear. Those jobs are just going to end up in the private sector. I'm not 100% convinced that cutting early childhood education is a great idea, given evidence that it can be high ROI investment.


----------



## sags

The choice for voters is now more obvious.

Do they vote for the Liberal spending ideoplogy (in full display with this budget)?

Do they vote for the conservative fiscal ideology (also now on full display with Hudak's campaign)?

One way or the other..........the results may put a temporary stop to both sides claiming they know what voters want.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Those jobs are just going to end up in the private sector.


That is their platform.
The govt. should not be doing all this.
Daycare and other such services can be easily delivered through a private sector for-profit model.

Incidentally, when the NDP gutted this parliament, one of the bills that got killed in the process was the daycare safety and regulation, which was created in the aftermath of a couple of negligent deaths.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The choice for voters is now more obvious.
> Do they vote for the Liberal spending ideoplogy (in full display with this budget)?
> Do they vote for the conservative fiscal ideology (also now on full display with Hudak's campaign)?


Hudak made a grave mistake earlier this morning when he said he will balance the budget 1 year sooner than the Liberals.
IMO, this will turn out to be a fatal PR error.

His opponents and many voters will say, if the net difference between the Liberals and the PCs, is only 1 year, who cares - let's wait another year.
We have had a deficit for 9 years now - one extra year isn't going to change anything.
Why go through all this pain, all this strife, all this bad blood, just to have a balanced budget 1 year earlier.

His message should have been that his plan is the _only_ one that has any hope of balancing the budget.
The Liberal plan is all lalaland and pixie dust.
They aren't going to balance the budget, not in 2016, not in 2018, not ever.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> But doesn't that mean that those companies would have been far worse off had they kept their DB plans?


Up until now, most articles I've read pointed to the DC plan's fixed costs and/or lower contribution rates as being the catalyst to trigger savings in a short time frame. To my thinking, this should be stacking the deck in favour of converting.

Yet these experts are saying the experience is zero savings for a long time, which is a huge contrast.

So I for one, want far more info as this appears to be a more complex situation than was originally thought. 
Otherwise, I can logically say that the companies would be worse off by staying with a DB pension ... but the experience may or may not bear this out.




andrewf said:


> So, they are saving by avoiding pension contribution increases.


The main two DB pension specific savings that I can think of are pension contribution increases to keep the benefit the same and top ups for investment performance issues.

There is also the savings of a difference in contribution rates as the DB pension I was in had a 5% employer contribution rate and the DC pension that I didn't qualify for had a 1% employer contribution rate. (I'm not sure why management wasted time inviting me to a presentation about a pension I couldn't join!)


With these sources of savings, I am astounded that the article is saying that most companies are not saving despite making the change up to twenty plus years ago. If someone had posted this statement, I would have thought they were delusional.


All I am really sure of at this point is that there is more here than meets the eye.


Cheers


----------



## sags

One other important component of DB pension plans.........is how they manage surpluses during the good years, especially during periods where the workforce will contribute for a long period of time before they collect their benefits.

Decades of growth from the surpluses......could have really boosted the status of the fund.

Sadly both sides got greedy, and agreed to divide up the surplus.........one for you........one for me........one for you.......one for me.

I believe someone mentioned it was part of the law governing pensions. Too bad...........it was a bad law.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The choice for voters is now more obvious.
> 
> Do they vote for the Liberal spending ideoplogy (in full display with this budget)?
> 
> Do they vote for the conservative fiscal ideology (also now on full display with Hudak's campaign)?
> 
> One way or the other..........the results may put a temporary stop to both sides claiming they know what voters want.


Well stated SAGS.
The province is very diverse and everyone who is about to vote wants something out of it for themselves. Sure, we all collectively want the deficit reduced or eliminated and
the hydro rates to go down..but in the end, you vote based on "what's in in for me"?

Unions..will vote for the party most favourable to them..that will be the NDP again, because they want the "status quo" maintained
The financial section will vote for which ever party best represents their interests....
Big Business wiil vote for the party that offers them more business and tax cuts at the same time
Health care votes for the party that leaves them be..status quo again
Teachers..same thing
Farmers..probably for the party that promises to cut taxes and electricity rates
and so on..

If Hudak and his PCs want to get in to replace the Fiberals...I don't understand his campaign tactics....cutting jobs to balance the budget..yes it may be necessary to do that, but don't announce it UNTIL you get in and have the mandate to do it...otherwise it may be political suicide to announce it up front. 
Even his "One million jobs will be created" far fetched as it sounds, is still a more positive way to run a campaign than slashing this and slashing that...a large segment of the voting population don't want to hear that...it makes them nervous to vote for a party that will undermine their way of life and send them to the unemployment line.
"Tim..just what where you thinking?"

Best approach is to do like the Fiberals ..promise a "chicken in every pot"..even if some of the promises they can't keep.


----------



## andrewf

So he gets a mandate to cut 10% of government jobs by not mentioning it during the campaign? Hudak wouldn't be able to hide from this, anyway.


----------



## james4beach

Taxes are surprisingly low in Ontario. *I wish I was still paying tax in Ontario.* I posted about this earlier in this thread

As a guy earning 80k - 100k, I had the most after-tax net income when I worked in Ontario, versus other provinces I've lived in, and even versus the west-coast US state I'm now working in. For instance my gross income went up 13k when I came to work in the U.S. but my net pay is the same. Do you see what I'm getting at? Ontario taxes are so low, that I made the same net money even though my gross income was 13k less.

And then there's the services. I think we get good value for the taxes in Ontario. And OHIP, oh my dear old OHIP, how I miss you. I miss paying the ontario health premium. I miss my OHIP card. I went to a medical clinic in the US for the first time yesterday. Do you know what they told me as I left the clinic? Even though I have a health insurance plan, they can't tell me what they will bill me ... "it's kind of a mystery!" the receptionist joked. That's no joke. In a month or two I will get a bill for the health care, and the amount is a mystery right now. The insurance will cover some of it, then there's the co-pay, co-insurance, deductible, out-of-pocket maximum, etc.

Yes I realize I'm nostalgic for Ontario (where I was born and spent most of my working years) but I'm very serious about this.

*Ontario is a great place to live and work, and your taxes are low. The health services are good. The place functions pretty well, police & social services are decent. It's a pretty safe and prosperous place to live. Low food prices. The universities are fantastic. There are beautiful forests and wilderness, tons of recreation.*

DON'T BE A WHINER

It's all relative and I think I'm gaining perspective with time. You may think your taxes in Ontario are high, but compared to other "good" western places to live (USA, Europe, scandinavia, etc) they're not that high.


----------



## gibor365

james, I don't know where are you working now, but 3 years ago my wife should've relocate to US (with L1/L2 visa) or get a package.... So, than I did taxes comparisson with Cali (1 of 3 states we could've move)... For my wife salary taxes in Cali practically the same like in ON , but there is no something like OHIP, but taxes in AB and BC were much lower than in California... thus, yes, low US taxes is a myth, part of propoganda.... on other hand taxes in ON for high salaries are much higher in ON than in AB or BC (and in QC it's a disaster )


----------



## HaroldCrump

james4beach said:


> As a guy earning 80k - 100k, I had the most after-tax net income when I worked in Ontario, versus other provinces I've lived in, and even versus the west-coast US state I'm now working in.


James, as I said on that thread as well, you are comparing against one of the highest tax jurisdictions in the United States.
You say "west coast", but let's just be clear that you are talking about California.

Your alter ego could move from California to Alberta and may be paying far less tax.


----------



## GoldStone

james4beach said:


> *Ontario is a great place to live and work, and your taxes are low. The health services are good. The place functions pretty well, police & social services are decent. It's a pretty safe and prosperous place to live. Low food prices. The universities are fantastic. There are beautiful forests and wilderness, tons of recreation.*


James, when was the last time Ontario had a balanced budget?

Ontario debt is $240B (in US dollars). $100B more than California debt, even though Ontario economy is much smaller. 

Yeah, the place functions pretty well, if you ignore the steaming pile of debt that's growing bigger every year.


----------



## Retired Peasant

james4beach said:


> ... *I wish I was still paying tax in Ontario.*...
> 
> *Ontario is a great place to live and work, and your taxes are low. The health services are good. The place functions pretty well, police & social services are decent. It's a pretty safe and prosperous place to live. Low food prices. The universities are fantastic. There are beautiful forests and wilderness, tons of recreation.*


So when are you moving back?


----------



## sags

Alberta is spending their future, to sustain the illusion of lower tax rates.

They spend all current oil royalties and have nearly depleted the Heritage Fund.

Taking money that should be put away for the future.........to pay the costs of today.........is taxation by another form.


----------



## james4beach

HaroldCrump said:


> James, as I said on that thread as well, you are comparing against one of the highest tax jurisdictions in the United States.
> You say "west coast", but let's just be clear that you are talking about California.


Well you're right, I'm comparing a very high tax jurisdiction (it's actually OR, not CA, but same high tax situation). I acknowledge that yes, there are parts of Canada where taxes are lower than in Ontario. I also lived in Manitoba, where taxes are higher than Ontario.

So among the 3 tax jurisdictions I've lived in Canada & US, I experienced the lowest taxes in Ontario and probably the best quality of life.

Yes, they have a horrible debt problem, and I think Ontario should increase their taxes. I would not buy Ontario provincial bonds. ON can afford to raise taxes and still be competitive, especially since taxes in the US are rising so rapidly (remember the USA is truly broke).

When will I move back? To clarify, I wouldn't have moved away if I could have found a job. I did thorough job hunting in Ottawa, Toronto, and KW region -- I tried very hard to find a job in Ontario (right during RIM/BB layoffs). After 4 months and 10+ interviews, I ended up with 2 Ontario job offers which would have been -10k or -19k pay cuts versus my last job. Then came along an opportunity from the US which was +13k pay increase. Obviously I preferred that, not to mention the appeal of a warmer climate during the brutal winter we had. There is a $23,000 difference in salary between the best offers I got in ON versus OR.

That was a no-brainer.

I definitely want to live in OR and try out this excellent job for a while, maybe 5 years. I'll move back to Ontario if I can find a job with good salary, or a very attractive job


----------



## sags

This Ontario election pretty much boils down to this open letter to Tim Hudak.

Hi Tim,

You say we can't keep spending, and have to cut back.

We don't want to cut back. We want to keep spending.

Sorry Tim, but I won't be voting for you.

Signed,

Ontario Voters.


----------



## james4beach

Maybe I should add that those salary offer numbers were before I tried negotiating. After negotiation the gap between ON and OR narrowed, but there were other factors like vacation that tipped the scale away from Ontario


----------



## MoreMiles

james4beach said:


> Well you're right, I'm comparing a very high tax jurisdiction (it's actually OR, not CA, but same high tax situation). I acknowledge that yes, there are parts of Canada where taxes are lower than in Ontario. I also lived in Manitoba, where taxes are higher than Ontario.
> 
> So among the 3 tax jurisdictions I've lived in Canada & US, I experienced the lowest taxes in Ontario and probably the best quality of life.
> 
> Yes, they have a horrible debt problem, and I think Ontario should increase their taxes. I would not buy Ontario provincial bonds. ON can afford to raise taxes and still be competitive, especially since taxes in the US are rising so rapidly (remember the USA is truly broke).
> 
> When will I move back? To clarify,* I wouldn't have moved away if I could have found a job. I did thorough job hunting in Ottawa, Toronto, and KW region -- I tried very hard to find a job in Ontario (right during RIM/BB layoffs). After 4 months and 10+ interviews, I ended up with 2 Ontario job offers which would have been -10k or -19k pay cuts versus my last job. * Then came along an opportunity from the US which was +13k pay increase. Obviously I preferred that, not to mention the appeal of a warmer climate during the brutal winter we had. There is a $23,000 difference in salary between the best offers I got in ON versus OR.
> 
> That was a no-brainer.
> 
> I definitely want to live in OR and try out this excellent job for a while, maybe 5 years. I'll move back to Ontario if I can find a job with good salary, or a very attractive job


You just proved that Ontario business environment is bad and non-competitive. And it's about to get worse. 

By forcing employers to pay more taxes, salaries, and payroll contributions, this will aggravate a bad situation into a worse situation. Imagine you already could not find a job, what do you think the current budget would do to the job market?

Every employer out there will try to save his/her business, by cutting somewhere... most of time, it means lay off, and replace with cheaper, perhaps foreign or contractor staff. Aren't we seeing that already? The situation will likely get worse if this crazy new Liberal budget gets shoved down our businesspeople's throat.


----------



## MoreMiles

sags said:


> This Ontario election pretty much boils down to this open letter to Tim Hudak.
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> You say we can't keep spending, and have to cut back.
> 
> We don't want to cut back. We want to keep spending.
> 
> Sorry Tim, but I won't be voting for you.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Ontario Voters.


Yeah. Why save if the government will pay for our retirement? Why work hard when unions will guarantee our work? Why cut back government budget when Ottawa will save us from bankrupting the whole province? After, Ottawa is part of Ontario, isn't it? So why worry if the Feds are on our soil? They won't let their home value crash, right? So let's just spend spend spend and wait for a bailout if it does not work out.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> Well you're right, I'm comparing a very high tax jurisdiction (it's actually OR, not CA, but same high tax situation). I acknowledge that yes, there are parts of Canada where taxes are lower than in Ontario. I also lived in Manitoba, where taxes are higher than Ontario.


Bur at least there is no state tax in OR.... When we visited OR I liked that when you go to restaurant, there is no PST, GST, HST, and other *ST , you pay what you order....


----------



## thompsg4416

sags said:


> This Ontario election pretty much boils down to this open letter to Tim Hudak.
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> You say we can't keep spending, and have to cut back.
> 
> We don't want to cut back. We want to keep spending.
> 
> Sorry Tim, but I won't be voting for you.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Ontario Voters.


Jumping into this conversation a bit late....

I dunno Sags - perhaps that letter is written for me.. I'm just not sure. I won't be voting for Wynne, she's obviously fell from the tree one to many times. She'll spend us into the ground and I'm a fiscal conservative by nature. However when I hear/read anything Hudak says I get scared. Cut 100,000 public sector jobs, cut corporate taxes by x amount etc etc... I just don't buy the big bag theory and his comments make him sound amateur IMHO. 

I'm all for PS job cuts but they should be done in a responsible manner. Tax cuts?? I didn't support Harper's GST cut(I still think it was dumb and nothing but a vote grab) and I have trouble supporting a tax cut when we're running a deficit. I understand the theory behind it but it stinks too much of ideology to me. Cut taxes once you balance the budget. There is a certain constituency that hears tax cuts and they'll vote for you... I'm not one. I'm waiting for a real leader to stand up and lead.. I'm sick of the soundbites. 

Greens and NDP? I can't say i know enough about either to vote for them but as it stands now - one of them is going to get it. Listening to Wynne and Hudak is mind numbing.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> One other important component of DB pension plans.........is how they manage surpluses during the good years, especially during periods where the workforce will contribute for a long period of time before they collect their benefits...
> 
> Sadly both sides got greedy, and agreed to divide up the surplus...
> 
> I believe someone mentioned it was part of the law governing pensions. Too bad...........it was a bad law.


We can both agree that in hind sight, it's bad legislation.

But it does call into question calling it "greed" as *all* of the legal choices eventually eliminate the surplus.

What were they supposed to do? Break the law and be fined for it out of the surplus?

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

GoldStone said:


> James, when was the last time Ontario had a balanced budget?


 ... which is why changes have to be made.




GoldStone said:


> ... Ontario debt is $240B (in US dollars). $100B more than California debt, even though Ontario economy is much smaller ...


I can agree Ontario's debt is bad but I'll need more evidence to convince me it's more than California's.

This link sets a floor of $256B in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-much-does-California-owe-2478624.php

This link from 2013 which includes both state and local gov't debt says $1.1 *Trillion*.
http://calwatchdog.com/2013/05/08/ca-wall-of-debt-hits-1126200000000-00/


[ Of course if California's debt is that much more, maybe Ontario's is as well. :biggrin: ]

Cheers

*PS*

With more checking, it is clear that the debt situation in California is not a cut and dried situation.

On one hand, the Sun quotes the Fraser Institute which claims California owes $144 Billion.
On the other hand, the US Debt Clock lists over $419 Billion.

All of this despite


> ... the constitution of California explicitly prohibits the state government to borrow in excess of $300,000… in an economy whose GDP is currently almost $2 trillion.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Ontario Voters.


You don't speak for Ontario Voters, sags.

Your Wynne might win the election, at least get back in with a minority govt.
But that does not mean she represents the wishes of all Ontario voters.

Given the fact that with the last voter turnaround in 2011 well below 50%, and that the Liberal party did not win a majority position in parliament, clearly proves that the Liberal party has only a sliver of support more than the PCs.
A large part of that is the demographics in the GTA and Southern Ontario.

But that still leaves hundreds of thousands of voters that don't agree with your view.


----------



## the-royal-mail

^ my thoughts exactly.


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> You don't speak for Ontario Voters, sags.
> 
> Your Wynne might win the election, at least get back in with a minority govt.
> But that does not mean she represents the wishes of all Ontario voters.
> 
> Given the fact that with the last voter turnaround in 2011 well below 50%, and that the Liberal party did not win a majority position in parliament, clearly proves that the Liberal party has only a sliver of support more than the PCs.
> A large part of that is the demographics in the GTA and Southern Ontario.
> 
> But that still leaves hundreds of thousands of voters that don't agree with your view.


Again, imho, this is because of the bad election system here... I won't be surprised that in some point only 15-20% will go to vote.... We didn't go to vote Ontario elections....as per polls 70% will go to Liberal, so why to bother?! I think Goldstone published survey map here.... again, in about 70% of riding already knowh who gonna win....
PS. just checked 2011 results: Liberals 52%, PC - 30%


----------



## Cal

With any luck more will come out to vote. My theory is you don't have the right ot complain about what the gov't does unless you vote.

And I enjoy having that right to complain. :hopelessness:


----------



## gibor365

_My theory is you don't have the right ot complain about what the gov't does unless you vote.
_ Boycotting election is also my right 

Here is my feelings  When we voted in Russia after Perestroyka or in Israel , we felt that our voice is important , here in Ontario, I feel like voting in CCCP before Gorbachev perios, regardless if I vote ot not , in my riding gonna win guy from Communist (or Liberal) party


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> You don't speak for Ontario Voters, sags....that still leaves hundreds of thousands of voters that don't agree with your view.


Sags certainly does not speak for me & many others.

Thank you for pointing that out Harold!


----------



## sags

I watched the "Death By China" documentary on Netflix last night.

It documents the genesis of where we are today in Ontario.....and in Ohio........and California and all over North America.

Very interesting and includes Democrats, Republicans, business people, union people........all kinds of political persuasions who have come to realize what has really happened since China joined the World Trade Organization.


----------



## sags

Right you are Harold............not every Ontario voter.

In the last election the only party running a campaign on tax cuts.....the PC party.......got 35% of the popular vote.

The letter .......was from the other 65% voting primarily for the Liberals and NDP.....who were running their election campaign on spending.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> In the last election the only party running a campaign on tax cuts.....the PC party.......got 35% of the popular vote.
> The letter .......was from the other 65% voting primarily for the Liberals and NDP.....who were running their election campaign on spending.


There is no dearth of oink oink at the trough.

Since you seem to be so handy with %s, maybe you could also tell us what has been the % growth in Ontario debt since the last elections.


----------



## GoldStone

HaroldCrump said:


> Since you seem to be so handy with %s, maybe you could also tell us what has been the % growth in Ontario debt since the last elections.


Debt growth, pfffttt, who cares. Kids and grandkids will pay for it all. Party on.


----------



## andrewf

Kids and grandkids also pay when you cut education and infrastructure spending. Just saying.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> Kids and grandkids also pay when you cut education and infrastructure spending. Just saying.


2012 Ontario Budget Highlights



> The single most important step the government can take to strengthen the economy is to balance the budget.
> 
> Here’s why: the cost of servicing Ontario’s debt is approximately $10 billion, the third-largest annual expense behind health care and education. *To put this in perspective, Ontario spends more money on interest each year than on colleges and universities.*
> 
> For every one per cent increase in interest rates, the cost to service the debt rises by $467 million in the first year of the increase. *If no action is taken to balance the budget, Ontario would pay almost as much to service the debt in 2017–18 as it spends on education today.*


They don't mention this in 2013 Highlights or 2014 Highlights. Strange, isn't it?


----------



## andrewf

I'm not disagreeing with the need to balance the budget, but questioning how it will be done.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> ... The letter .......was from the other 65% voting primarily for the Liberals and NDP.....who were running their election campaign on spending.


 ... and it assumes that nothing has change voter's minds ... which may or may not be true. 


Cheers


----------



## sags

Eclectic12 said:


> ... and it assumes that nothing has change voter's minds ... which may or may not be true.
> 
> 
> Cheers


That is certainly true.

Once in awhile the voters get fed up enough to make a change........as when Ontario voted in an NDP government.

We will see if the voters want a change in this election.


----------



## HaroldCrump

HaroldCrump said:


> - Eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks, and the College of Trades
> - Two-year wage freeze for everyone in the broader public sector including politicians, civil servants and anyone else paid by taxpayers
> - Scrap "gold-plated" civil service pension plans
> - Reduce 100,000 jobs across the entire government
> - Reduce the size of cabinet from 27 to 16 ministers


In addition to the above, more specific action plan available now:
- Increase classroom sizes by 2-3 students.
- Increase the ratio for full-day kindergarten to one teacher for every 20 students, from the current ratio of two teachers per 26 students.
- Cancel a planned raise for elementary teachers in the public school boards.
- Cut 9,700 non-teaching positions in schools — on top of the 100,000 public sector jobs.
- End a 30 per cent tuition grant for post-secondary students.
- Eliminate proposed raises for early childhood educators and personal support workers for students with special needs.
- Freeze the Ontario child benefit at $1,200.
- Forego proposed funding for in vitro fertilization treatments.
- Eliminate the $1,500 Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit.
- Combine Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program.
- End public funding for advocacy groups such as the Toronto Environmental Alliance.

Details here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ass-sizes-cancels-teacher-pay-hikes-1.2642657


----------



## sags

Ontario Liberals should thank Tim Hudak for their good fortune.

A poll released before Hudak made these latest comments, which certainly won't help him.........shows the Liberals may form a majority government with 68 seats.

Hudak is imploding again...........worse this time.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...s_a_tough_sell_with_voters_poll_suggests.html


----------



## andrewf

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

Quite a swing. A couple days ago the polls were suggesting a PC majority. It shows that the situation is very fluid right now. I still think we'll see the PCs win, but I don't think it will be a majority.


----------



## Eclectic12

Maybe ... and maybe not.

I wasn't paying attention to the province as a whole but I recall my brother-in-law talking about how the polls showed consistently that the PCs would elect several members in the surrounding area ... up until the last minute.

I was also interested to see an old article listing Peterborough as the "bell weather" riding for the last election ... not a role I would have expected.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Ontario Liberals should thank Tim Hudak for their good fortune.


The moment I heard that news of Hudak planning 100K job cuts in the public sector, I posted here that this is a mistake of gargantuan proportions.
Well before the CBC wrote the "turning point" article on their website.

I suspect many Ontario residents are living in denial that there are deep problems with the incumbent Liberal administration.
If the voters elect in a majority Liberal govt., it is simply a carte blanche to spend, spend & spend more money.
It will postpone the problem to 2016 - 2017, when it will get much worse.

_That_ will require a Mike Harris type fix.
Hudak is far more center than Harris.


----------



## james4beach

The problem I have with conservatives are their underlying motives, which I think is to cut the public sector jobs (there's a clear anti-public sector slant) while retaining unrealistically low corporate taxes to benefit their buddies: wealthy industrialists.

Ontario corporate tax rates are very low. For manufacturing, it's lower than many US states.

If you let the conservatives have their way, large corporations (and resource intensive ones) will continue to enjoy the sweetest deal in North America while your essential public services degrade. This is not my preference.

It's a recipe that benefits the very rich, and hurts everyone else. You and I are not very rich, so this isn't in our favour

(Part of the consevative bag-of-tricks is to convince poor people that they're in that rich category... this is why you have relatively poor small town people cheering the "cut spending" mantra. Or poor people calling to restrain the size of government. Or average middle class people, like CMF members, jeering Liberal "spend spend spend". Quite a trick, to get voters to agree to things that hurt themselves. It's hilarious, and really is the result of effective psychological manipulation and a right-wing playbook that's used worldwide)


----------



## james4beach

"Stupid big gub-mint! They gonna dun' raise taxes and send us all to the poo' house. Now 'scuse me while I take ma kids to school and cash in some food stamps"


----------



## andrewf

'Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'


----------



## carverman

james4beach said:


> ( Quite a trick, to get voters to agree to things that hurt themselves. It's hilarious, and really is the result of effective psychological manipulation and a right-wing playbook that's used worldwide)


Yes, I doubt that the Cons will get any of the union vote or the PS vote. Some areas are predominantly Liberal and will vote Liberal even if a dog is running as a candidate. 

I doubt very much that Hudak's campaign is going to make any difference in a Liberal stronghold..so that leaves just the swing vote which has gone to the NDP, but Horwath has no solutions.
....although she is promising NOT to close some schools in the GTA because of declining enrollment in those schools, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden..
...and other than perhaps cutting out the PST on electricity..not too much to choose from in her election campaign.


----------

