Carney platform promises $130B in new spending, deficits until 2029 :Heart Attack:

[JohnLarue]

So how is Mark Carney expecting to pay for these massive increases in already excessive spending?
- bigger and persistent deficits?
- higher taxes?
or
taxing the equity in Canadian's homeownership i.e. principal home ?

 

[mdo2886]

Going to be pretty funny if Carney gets elected by the Boomer vote and then introduces a home equity tax.

There is no other or juicier way to pay for all of that debt.

 

[JohnLarue]

Going to be pretty funny if Carney gets elected by the Boomer vote and then introduces a home equity tax.

There is no other or juicier way to pay for all of that debt.

there is no way in hell Carney would get elected if he made this public

the very direct question should be put to him prior to April 28

 

[DesRicardo]

So how is Mark Carney expecting to pay for these massive increases in already excessive spending?

That's the thing. He not.

All we've been hearing for the last 2-3 months is he's an economic genius, a brilliant banker, a master of finances, Only for him to release a budget worse than Trudeau's.

Is there any doubt where Trudeau got all his guidance from now?

If this guy gets elected, it's the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Butler1000]

I think Carney understands that taxing Home Equity would probably result in the death of the Liberal Party federally. It would end up in the same space as the NDP in Ontario politics, and quickly be recovered by the next incoming Majority Conservative caucus.

They want power. He is going to run deficits.

 

[DesRicardo]

It's a copy of Ontario Liberals. Carney has stepped in much like Wynne did and will do fraudulent accounting practices just like she did.

If he gets in office, he will do one term and lose in a crushing defeat because of overspending with no real path balancing.

I don't see the point extending Liberals. In the interest of Canada, vote Conservative.

Time for Change.

 

[DesRicardo]

And if you wonder why people all over the world hate Socialism, you're seeing why right now.

There is no real plan. Just spend until you ain't got a dollar left.

 

[mdo2886]

Separating federal spending into "investments" and program spending is the same kind of accounting Enron used. Carney is only here to funnel more taxpayer dollars into Brookfield and Liberal insider pockets.

I am stunned how moronic many Canadians are - do you not realize parliament was paralyzed all fall because the Liberals refused to hand over documents related to their green scam fund to the RCMP?

Like Hello....Buehler.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Separating federal spending into "investments" and program spending is the same kind of accounting Enron used.

Maintaining a distinction between capital and operating budgets is not a new practice.
It is a legitimate and internationally accepted way of structuring public budgets.
UK, EU, Australia and even some states in the US (California, Texas etc) use this method.
So Carney's proposal is not fraudulent and makes sense.
I have asked what the glorified sloganeer has proposed and the only answer I got was "deregulation" and tax cuts.
Both benefitting only the super rich.

 

[mdo2886]

Maintaining a distinction between capital and operating budgets is not a new practice.
It is a legitimate and internationally accepted way of structuring public budgets.
UK, EU, Australia and even some states in the US (California, Texas etc) use this method.
So Carney's proposal is not fraudulent and makes sense.
I have asked what the glorified sloganeer has proposed and the only answer I got was "deregulation" and tax cuts.
Both benefitting only the super rich.

4 of the 5 you listed are fiscal disasters.

Resource development companies fund much of the social spending of the entire country.

Poilievre's proposed income tax cut (double that of Carney's) directly benefits middle income people.

Once again you have no concrete points.

 

[DesRicardo]

Maintaining a distinction between capital and operating budgets is not a new practice.

You can say that again.

I have asked what the glorified sloganeer has proposed

Elbows Up.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

4 of the 5 you listed are fiscal disasters.

Resource development companies fund much of the social spending of the entire country.

Poilievre's proposed income tax cut (double that of Carney's) directly benefits middle income people.

Once again you have no concrete points.

No they are not fiscal disasters.
That is an unfounded statement.
Resource development companies do not fund much of the social spending in the country.
They account for only 25% of the GDP of Canada.
So while that is substantial, it is not the backbone of the country that contributes primarily to Canada's spending.
So again an untrue statement.
You have posted a bunch of lies and delusions.
What Pierre is proposing will result in fiscal or social disaster.
Pierre's income tax cut won't benefit people because such cuts cannot be accomplished without cutting services.
If he does not cut services, then it will increase deficits.
Canadian's rely on services a lot.
Especially lower income Canadians at this difficult time.
So cutting services is unacceptable.
We only have to look at what Trump did during his first term.
He cut taxes and the deficit went up by 8T (40%) in 4 years.
So Pierre's proposal has been proven to be a failure and doing the same thing without learning lessons from others is insanity.

 

[mdo2886]

No they are not fiscal disasters.
That is an unfounded statement.
Resource development companies do not fund much of the social spending in the country.
They account for only 25% of the GDP of Canada.
So while that is substantial, it is not the backbone of the country that contributes primarily to Canada's spending.
So again an untrue statement.
You have posted a bunch of lies and delusions.
What Pierre is proposing will result in fiscal or social disaster.
Pierre's income tax cut won't benefit people because such cuts cannot be accomplished without cutting services.
If he does not cut services, then it will increase deficits.
Canadian's rely on services a lot.
Especially lower income Canadians at this difficult time.
So cutting services is unacceptable.
We only have to look at what Trump did during his first term.
He cut taxes and the deficit went up by 8T (40%) in 4 years.
So Pierre's proposal has been proven to be a failure and doing the same thing without learning lessons from others is insanity.

25% is MASSIVE since many unproductive things are also counted in GDP. Resource extraction is bigger than any other private sector industry. LOL.

Trump refused to reduce military, SS or Medicaid spending which make up a huge portion of the budget.

So with record debt you have just said you don't want to cut either services or spending - a true Liberal buff oon.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

25% is MASSIVE since many unproductive things are also counted in GDP. Resource extraction is bigger than any other private sector industry. LOL.

Trump refused to reduce military, SS or Medicaid spending which make up a huge portion of the budget.

So with record debt you have just said you don't want to cut either services or spending - a true Liberal buff oon.

Unproductive things are not counted in GDP.
GDP is total values of goods and services produced by the economy.
Since it is produced, it does not count anything unproductive.
I asked ChatGPT for tax numbers for the top 5 companies in each sector for 2024.
Here are the numbers it produced.
Clearly service industries paid more taxes in absolute terms.

And yes, that is what I said.
Trump refused to cut spending and therefore it added to deficits.
In Canada we cannot afford to cut services as many Canadians depend on it.
So, you cannot afford to cut taxes and any proposal that involves cutting taxes will only add to deficits.
It will be fiscal and social disaster.
Conservative talking dolls repeat the same thing over and over again for decades even though they have been shown to fail over and over again.
Do you have anything new other than cutting taxes, deregulation and cutting much needed services?
Especially in light of Trump's threats towards Canada?
But not surprising considering 50% of the CPC are quislings.

 

[JohnLarue]

Separating federal spending into "investments" and program spending is the same kind of accounting Enron used. Carney is only here to funnel more taxpayer dollars into Brookfield and Liberal insider pockets.

I am stunned how moronic many Canadians are - do you not realize parliament was paralyzed all fall because the Liberals refused to hand over documents related to their green scam fund to the RCMP?

Like Hello....Buehler.

you should separate operating expenses from infrastructure spending
debt should only be used to fund infrastructure spending and the debt duration (present value of the cash flows ) should be aligned with the duration (expected lifetime) of the infrastructure asset

debt should not be used to cover operating budgets

the problem has been that governments have used debt financing to cover excessive operating expenses
Liberals claim to be investing in people , which means paying public sector unions / bureaucrat too much in order to have labor peace

AI Overview

Learn more


Since 2015, Canada's federal public service has grown significantly, increasing in size by approximately 43%. This translates to an increase of over 110,000 employees. For instance, between 2015 and March 2024, the number of federal employees grew from 257,034 to 367,772. This growth has been faster than the rate of Canada's population growth over the same period.

it sounds like Carney wants to make it 500,000 inefficient bureaucrats each with pensions we can not afford

 

[JohnLarue]

In Canada we cannot afford to cut services as many Canadians depend on it.

we can reduce the costs of delivering those services

Since 2015, Canada's federal public service has grown significantly, increasing in size by approximately 43%. This translates to an increase of over 110,000 employees. For instance, between 2015 and March 2024, the number of federal employees grew from 257,034 to 367,772. This growth has been faster than the rate of Canada's population growth over the same period.

an increase of 43% without any perceived incremental benefit

also

Canada’s reliance on IT specialists has led to a ‘shadow bureaucracy’ of private consultants in the federal government

thehub.ca

n 2022, federal spending on all contracts outsourced to the private sector (categorised as “professional and special services” by the Public Accounts of Canada) saw its greatest annual increase since 2006: a 23.6 percent rise from $11.8 billion to $14.6 billion in 2022. In 2023, professional and special services spending again rose to a record-breaking $15.6 billion.

This is despite the federal public sector growing to 274,219 employees in 2023, a 40 percent increase since 2015.

So, you cannot afford to cut taxes and any proposal that involves cutting taxes will only add to deficits.

bull shit

It will be fiscal and social disaster.

a fourth liberal term will be a fiscal and social disaster.

Conservative talking dolls repeat the same thing over and over again for decades even though they have been shown to fail over and over again.
Do you have anything new other than cutting taxes, deregulation and cutting much needed services?

look, you can not run liberal deficits in perpetuity
a govt insolvency shuts down all govt services
are you that stunned that you do not understand the biggest threat to social programs is irresponsible Liberal govt spending

Especially in light of Trump's threats towards Canada?
But not surprising considering 50% of the CPC are quislings.

how dare you
Trudeaus mismanagement of our economy have left us vulnerable
Carney is Trudeau 2.0 ,

 

[dirkd101]

Right, so you dont know.
Regurgitating Pierre's slogan isn't being informed.

Have you lived on another planet, in the last ten years, or are you really that thick?

I won't answer something that is well known and pointed out by economists, right here in Canada.

If you don't know this point, you truly have had your head in the sand and like Trump republicans, you've drank the kool-aid, from your party of choice.

 

[dirkd101]

If you think the carbon tax effected grocery prices that just means you have no clue.

Keep your head in the sand, Ff.

Like Trump's tariffs, do you think the trucking companies absorbed the carbon tax for us? How about the grocery chains? Do you really thing that Galen Weston took a hit for the consumer, and absorbed this tax?

Yeah, you're right, I have no clue...

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Have you lived on another planet, in the last ten years, or are you really that thick?

I won't answer something that is well known and pointed out by economists, right here in Canada.

If you don't know this point, you truly have had your head in the sand and like Trump republicans, you've drank the kool-aid, from your party of choice.

I asked you a very specific question.
We know prices of everything have gone up GLOBALLY.
I asked what % of your personal increased grocery spending is due to the carbon tax? (100%? 90%? 10%?...)
Do you think the carbon tax is the sole reason for inflation, or do you think there are other world events that have caused global inflation?
You either don't have the answer or you are unwilling to get into the details of it because that would show your statement to be irrational.
You just have talking points that Pierre has already provided you.

 

[richaceg]

So how is Mark Carney expecting to pay for these massive increases in already excessive spending?
- bigger and persistent deficits?
- higher taxes?
or
taxing the equity in Canadian's homeownership i.e. principal home ?

How is he gonna balance all this? Once PM, he will apply back Carbon Tax ... that's only for election.