# We are Smart



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

On this forum we think we are smart with finance and taxes and so on. But instead many of us outsmart ourselves and in all the moving parts are really not so smart.

In taxes we see many items as general revenue which they are but to the masses they just go by. In my opinion every tax should have a target so we can explain to the masses where they are going to make it easy for everyone to debate. Of course general revenue is important so much of it should stay that way so it is not overly micromanaged and manipulated. 

Of course the forum people will be shocked by what I said, but they of course forget that we are in a democracy. So you must sell to the masses to get the agenda through so in that is why you need all taxes to be transparent to sell to any idiot.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

dogcom said:


> In my opinion every tax should have a target so we can explain to the masses where they are going to make it easy for everyone to debate.


This sounds like a cumbersome behemoth. It is analogous to saying Coca-Cola's management should attribute revenues earned from selling cola to one venture, then using revenues generated from selling Dasani water to a different venture.

The logistics of this type of coordinated revenue-spending matching would be difficult to say the least.

I think government MUST be accountable to spending our $'s so mandated audits, or teams of 3rd party accountants charged with tracking $'s is something I would feel comfortable with paying for.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Sampson I said much should stay in general revenue like income tax and so on. But the rest should be easily explained to almost anyone even if it goes to general revenue. It is hard for me to explain what I mean to the forum of smart people in this area but that is also the problem. The government does not have to be accountable when it can manipulate and create taxes to go into general revenue at its leisure so to speak.

I Greater Vancouver city taxes have gone up well over the cost of inflation or anything else yet the mayors want more for transit improvements. Or in Richmond BC where I live the are developing condo's at an alarming rate increasing the amount of tax payers yet my taxes keep going higher and higher. Why have development when no one benefits except the shitty city as I call it.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I don't know anything about Vancouver or Richmond, but surely the books are open and the budgets are public.

The problem really is whether we citizens can decide what the costs of X services should be. I have know idea whether individual department budgets are realistic but more importantly competitive. Any massive organization is bound to have lots of waste, I'm not sure if handcuffing public servants by forcing them to demonstrate how each dollar is spent would be productive.

There is a level of trust we have to give, when our Police says he/she needs more beat cops to tackle crime in a certain neighborhood, who is to keep them accountable and them them HOW many and more important how much $$$ that will take?

That's why I think routine audits would be the only way to go, but those too would obviously cost us lots in tax $.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought transit was paid for by regional gas taxes?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't have the answer. I used to think the same thing, until I got some experience in public sector, and now, I'm not sure what the answer is. 

Of course, transparency and accountability are cornerstone to responsible government. However, in order to get transparency for people to the average person understand to make any sense of intelligent decision costs ALOT of money. Most people do not understand what it takes to run a city, province, a country, so while it sounds good to do something, it may not actually make sense in the long term. People are swayed by media and public opinion. This is not good decision making. Look what happens when people do not take the time to educate themselves, you get 19 yr old MPs, with no experience, or other people that are supposed to represent them, that have never been in their riding. 

I have learned that alot of the waste that comes from government is from the citizens and public themselves. All you need is one person to go to the media or their elected official to complain about something they don't like, next thing you know, there is a whole bunch of people spending tax payers money trying to justify to one person why they are doing that. Imagine having every business decision you make possibly scrutinized by a million people (or more depending on your city population). 

Politicians are not looking for the long term, they are looking for the next term. This means that many things that are done just to look good in front of the public, not neccessarily the right thing to do for the future. Alot of continuous improvement takes a little time to set the foundation in order to get the large gains, however, politicians do not want to see this, because they know that the public is also short sighted with short memories. To really get improvements, its not about making things more transparent (all documents are available to the public, and are FOIPable), it's about demanding that our poiliticians look further into the future. 

I have no idea how this is done, but part of it, is instead of demanding to see results part of it comes for demanding to see future plans in place with policies, and the ability to monitor and control progress. 

Every person wants their voice heard and feels it's important, if they only knew how much each answer costs them, they might be a little more thoughful in what they demand.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The reason politicians don't want dedicated tax revenue for specific programs, is because the public would be able to hold them accountable. 

Politicians are people born with a gene, that has convinced them they know better than everyone else.

Some examples:

The lottery business started in Ontario, with the Wintario Lottery. The lottery proceeds were dedicated towards building new hockey arenas and community centres throughout Canada. It was a very successful program and built a lot of infrastructure for many towns and cities. It worked so well, they ran out of rinks to build and started funding hospitals.....which wasn't a bad thing.

Today, we have lotteries and legal gambling casinos all over the place, and the money is not accounted for. It is divvied up and spent in general revenue, with the greatest profits kept by the operators, which are usually gaming companies from the US.

In the US, there is no Social Security fund holding the hundreds of Billions contributed by employees and employers. The money was taken in as general revenue and spent. The Government replaced cash with a promise to pay. The retirees are now being blamed for wanting their "entitlements" because the US Government can't afford to pay the money back. That is what "entitlements" means. The people are "entitled" to the money because they paid for the benefits.

Imagine an insurance company accepting premiums for 40 years and then deciding times were tough and they could only honour 1/2 the value of life insurance policies.

In Canada, we do the same thing with our Unemployment Fund. The contributions are taken in as general revenue and the Government pays the benefits out of general revenue. One of the big "problems" with this situation is the Government, who owe the money, are inclined to restrict benefits to those who rightly deserve them. They lengthen waiting periods, lower benefits, lengthen or shorten the benefit collection period. It is in their own best interest to make it more difficult for people to collect, *which is a really, really good reason why the Government shouldn't be trusted to put anything into general revenue, with the promise of future payment.*

We should have more dedicated taxes directed at programs that Canadians want. The funds should be held arms length from the Government.

Wouldn't the Canadian Government just love to get their hands on the CPP fund. I can hear it now....."Oh, we will just borrow the 50 Billion and pay off the deficit and then we will pay it back later"

Like Wimpy said...."I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today"


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

sags said:


> In Canada, we do the same thing with our Unemployment Fund. The contributions are taken in as general revenue and the Government pays the benefits out of general revenue.


No. The EI system has operated on a PAYGO basis since 2008. Revenues are not added to general revenue - in fact, this has never been the case. The Chretien government took out EI surpluses but EI premiums have never been paid directly into general revenues.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> Politicians are not looking for the long term, they are looking for the next term. This means that many things that are done just to look good in front of the public, not neccessarily the right thing to do for the future. Alot of continuous improvement takes a little time to set the foundation in order to get the large gains, however, politicians do not want to see this, because they know that the public is also short sighted with short memories. To really get improvements, its not about making things more transparent (all documents are available to the public, and are FOIPable), it's about demanding that our poiliticians look further into the future.
> 
> I have no idea how this is done, but part of it, is instead of demanding to see results part of it comes for demanding to see future plans in place with policies, and the ability to monitor and control progress.


IMHO the media needs to start doing a better job holding the political party's feet to the fire for there policy impacts. This includes the opposition parties as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

One of the problems is that people feel comfortable describing politicians as evil. No wonder many very capable people are not interested in public office.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Politicians may not know more than everyone else, but in many cases they have more information than "the masses" and may be better able to see the big picture and balance a wide range of competing priorities and interests.

If you open everything up to debate, nothing will ever get done because all the advocates for spending more or less money on X will lobby hard for their cause, while all the advocates for spending more or less money on Y will lobby equally hard for their cause. And then everything becomes a referendum with the loudest/largest number of yellers getting heard above everyone else. And sometimes the most important things are not the things that the largest number of people care about.

Opening decsions to referendum means asking people who don't have the training or the facts or the knowledge to make important policy decisions. That's a really stupid way to govern. In a democracy everyone should have a say, but in the end the politicians have to decide what's best based on what they know and what the competing priorities are. Most people don't grasp the big picture, they only know about the little piece of the pie they care about.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Politicians are in a bind because voters want tax cuts AND services. We cannot have both. For example, law-and-order voters want more prisons and harsher sentences, but doing so is expensive. In years past, this has led to an odd fiscal compromise: longer sentences but earlier paroles. I read a story a while ago about someone who served on a parole board (a truly thankless job). He said there was tremendous pressure to release prisoners due to cost, but heaven help you if you release the _wrong_ prisoner! Canadians (like most taxpayers) want to have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I am not saying everything should be put to a referendum or anything like that. Instead I am saying we should have an easy clear picture at arms length like sags mentioned. Also mentioned that it would be to expensive to make it easy for people to see where the money goes. But the way I see it is the money still gets spent because when you offload it to a program then someone there is hired to place and account for the money.

The logic by some here is that everything is really general revenue so in it goes and so should CPP as well. By the logic used here I don't see why it should be dedicated and just put it in general revenue. The carbon tax goes to general revenue so if the government wants to it can build roads with that money and increase the amount of cars on the road. After awhile we will complain we need more transit to be green so the government and mayors will ask for more gas tax as happening right now in BC to pay for it.

Sorry guys I still think the people with the money smarts are really missing the whole picture of what needs to be done. Looking to the future is a good thing as plugging along mentions when dealing with taxes. So short, mid and long term should always be dealt with when politicians bring in new spending or taxes unless the new spending is a one time short term item. The reason Canada has such a huge amount of debt is because of politicians making promises and then using general revenue to confuse how they get paid for.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

dogcom said:


> Sorry guys I still think the people with the money smarts are really missing the whole picture of what needs to be done.


Its more a question of what is the best way to do it. I don't think I have read any one response where people don't think governments should be more accountable and transparent,

my question back is how much would implementing this type of system be, and how happy would the public actually be to know how much things actually cost.

Ex. Although tuition fees for university students is increasing, so is the amount of subsidy by the government (by tax dollars). Would we be as sympathetic to higher education if we knew that it can cost over $200k to support a graduate student in X field of study?

I think this is where the 'insight' and knowledge required by politicians, or others 'in-the-know' is required. I'm not qualified to determine or even assess the cost or value of a particular service/project.

Should pedestrians using pedestrian bridges be taxed or should tolls be set up so they can cross a river?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I see no reason why people shouldn't know that we support a graduate student to the tune of $200k. 

On the pedestrian bridge I still want to know how much it would cost. A good example is a new fancy traffic light the city of Richmond wants to build in Steveston a fishing village in Richmond. The city wants to build a light with all the bells and whistles that would cost about 10 times what a normal light will cost even though a normal traffic light would be fine.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

LondonHomes said:


> IMHO the media needs to start doing a better job holding the political party's feet to the fire for there policy impacts. This includes the opposition parties as well.


It's not up to the media to hold the politician accountable, it's up to the people and the system. Also, what about holding the media accountable? Do you really think they are providing unbiased facts in order to educate the masses? Or are they reporting the news in such a ways that can influence and manipulate. I have seen the media sway public opinion on political issues, and they don't have any more understanding than anyone else. It's up to people to take the time to educate themselves, and this part itself is difficult too? Where do they go for the information? Media... can only give you a part of the information, the five minute version, Internet... well lets see how reliable it is... The most reliable source is to ask for the reports and recommendations, and then go through their studies to see how they came up with the conclusions.... now how many of us here have EVER done that or ever will?

The other problems with having the media hold the Politicians accountable, is quite often the effects do not happen until much later, and the politicians are out of office then. Why do you think that politicians are constantly looking for the quick things that will look good now. 




dogcom said:


> On the pedestrian bridge I still want to know how much it would cost. A good example is a new fancy traffic light the city of Richmond wants to build in Steveston a fishing village in Richmond. The city wants to build a light with all the bells and whistles that would cost about 10 times what a normal light will cost even though a normal traffic light would be fine.


Here's the problem with understanding how much something WOULD cost. It's all based on assumptions and the future. It assumes that everything is scoped out properly, and there will not be any changes. If you've ever worked in project management, you would know that it's pretty difficult to be accurate right from the approval stage. The problem is, to get an accurate estimate, ALOT of planning and scoping is required up front, and you need money and resources to do this. This also assumes that stakeholders are all in agreement in what is to be done, and that no further negotiation is required. In private sector this is an issue, but it is amplified in public, as now all the citizens become stakeholders. This is a classic project management issue. 

In terms of the lights, I don't know the exact details of the bells and whistles that you refer too, but I do know a little bit of the study that went into it to develop the recommendation. I know that what one deems as bells and whistles, is what others deems as necessity. 

The one thing that I have noticed about public sector is that it cannot run on the same principles as private. I used to think that the public sector should be more efficient and bottom line focused. Now, I understand that it can't nor should it be. The government isn't in the business to make money. They are there to provide services to the public. There are many things that the private sectors won't even consider doing because it is not profitable, but public sector will because it's the right thing to do. Things like sustainability and the environment are examples. They cost more money, generally do not have an economic benefit, but have a huge social or other non financial benefits. I do think there are better ways (more cost effective or efficient) to deliver the services, but I find there is often a reason certain things are done that the masses do not understand. 

I think the only way things are going to change is that people are willing to look at the over picture, educate themselves, start thinking longer term, and be willing to make hard choices and send that message to their politicians.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

dogcom said:


> The city wants to build a light with all the bells and whistles that would cost about 10 times what a normal light will cost even though a normal traffic light would be fine.


And this is a perfect example of a case where the city might be making the right decision even though from a budget perspective it might look wasteful. For example, LED traffic lights are much more expensive to purchase than standard incandescent lamps, but they pay for themselves very quickly due to their vastly reduced electricity costs, reduced maintenance costs, and greater reliability. There are dozens of studies and real-world examples documenting the savings over the lifetime of the traffic light, and the savings are so compelling that most cities have switched to LED lights. Net payback is typically less than three years, and after that the city rakes in the savings -- for a large city the annual savings in energy and maintenance costs can be $500K or more. Since LED traffic lights typically last seven years or more before they need to be replaced, the city could easily save more than $1 million by replacing all its traffic lights with LEDs.

See this example from the city of Portland, Oregon in the US: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=111737&c=41888

Or this fact sheet:
http://www.cee1.org/gov/led/led-cost.pdf


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> Opening decsions to referendum means asking people who don't have the training or the facts or the knowledge to make important policy decisions. That's a really stupid way to govern. In a democracy everyone should have a say, but in the end the politicians have to decide what's best based on what they know and what the competing priorities are. Most people don't grasp the big picture, they only know about the little piece of the pie they care about.


That's exactly what's happening with our HST referendum in BC right now, Brad. Many people here are still so angry at the Liberal government for the admittedly stupid way they brought in the HST that they can't separate the two issues: (1) Is the HST a better tax system than the PST was? and (2) Do I want to vote Liberal in the next election? They are two entirely different questions, but I fear that the first one is going to be decided by people who don't have the faintest clue what the issue really is and don't begin to understand the financial ramifications of reverting to a PST. I don't pretend to understand it perfectly myself, but I do know that when I was asked to sign Vander Zalm's petition, I said, "No, I'm not going to sign it because I don't fully understand which tax will be better for the province and, frankly, I doubt whether you do either." Needless to say, the woman was not very pleased with me.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

The traffic light is almost at the water which means that there is not much traffic that can really be created for the future. The light will replace a 4 way stop which I agree is a good idea. The bells and whistles are things like pedestrian crossing going in all directions like a box and an x. I believe it is another wet dream by the mayor like the wet dreams the Vancouver mayor gets over bike lanes.

Karen I did sign against the HST at the time because I was mad and also because I don't trust anything a government does without a lot of debate. I didn't however send in my vote against the HST because the ship has sailed and the government will just simply punish us if we go back to the old PST system.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

dogcom said:


> I believe it is another wet dream by the mayor like the wet dreams the Vancouver mayor gets over bike lanes.


If these mayors just have a random affection for pedestrians and bike lanes, then it's a wet dream. But if these cities have a larger strategy in place to become more pedestrian- and bike-friendly, then the traffic light and the bike lanes are simply signs that the strategy is being implemented in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion.

There are good reasons why cities should encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, including the many environmental, human health, and economic benefits that occur when human-powered transport replaces vehicle trips. The more bike-and-pedestrian friendly a city becomes, the more people start to choose those forms of transport even if they own a car. I see that in my own city; it's pretty evident in Toronto as well despite the current mayor's antagonism to anything with fewer than four wheels.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I agree with what you are saying brad except with these guys go way to far and over the top. I am sure it goes on in Montreal and Toronto as well. Improvements need to be made but quite often it is done for far more money then any future can justify.

City taxes have gone up far higher then any future can justify and I am sure that probably goes nation wide. I often wonder why I would want more development increasing the tax base when I get no benefit from it.


----------

